A randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of guided bone regeneration with polytetrafluoroethylene titanium-reinforced membranes, CAD/CAM semi-occlusive titanium meshes and CAD/CAM occlusive titanium foils in partially atrophic arches.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read More Add to Saved list
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: Quintessence Verlags-GmbH Country of Publication: Germany NLM ID: 101744702 Publication Model: Print Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 2631-6439 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 26316420 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Int J Oral Implantol (Berl) Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Original Publication: Berlin, Germany : Quintessence Verlags-GmbH, [2019]-
    • Subject Terms:
      Polytetrafluoroethylene* ; Titanium* ; Surgical Mesh* ; Computer-Aided Design* ; Membranes, Artificial*; Humans ; Male ; Female ; Middle Aged ; Treatment Outcome ; Aged ; Bone Regeneration ; Adult ; Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal/methods ; Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal/instrumentation
    • Abstract:
      Purpose: To compare the clinical effectiveness of three different devices used in guided bone regeneration procedures for partially atrophic arches.
      Materials and Methods: A randomised controlled trial with three parallel arms was conducted. The study evaluated titanium-reinforced polytetrafluoroethylene membrane (PTFE group), semi-occlusive CAD/CAM titanium mesh (mesh group) and occlusive CAD/CAM titanium foil (foil group) in terms of surgical outcomes and complications as well as surgical times and surgeon satisfaction in 27 guided bone regeneration procedures, presenting results from 1 year post-implant placement.
      Results: Complications occurred in seven patients. No significant difference was found between the groups in terms of the occurrence of complications (P = 0.51), device exposure (P = 0.12) and implant failure (P = 0.650). Surgeon satisfaction varied significantly, with the PTFE group differing from the mesh (P = 0.003) and foil groups (P 0.001), but not between meshes and foils (P = 0.172). Surgical times also differed significantly, with longer times for PTFE membranes compared to meshes (P 0.001) and foils (P = 0.006), but with no difference between meshes and foils (P = 0.308). The mean reconstructed bone volume was 1269.55 ± 561.08 mm3, with no significant difference observed between the three groups (P = 0.815). There was also no significant difference for mean maximum height (6.72 mm, P = 0.867) and width (7.69 mm, P = 0.998). The mean marginal bone loss at 1 year after implant placement was 0.59 ± 0.27 mm.
      Conclusions: Although this study provides valuable insights into the potential benefits of using different types of CAD/CAM devices, further research with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods is warranted to validate these findings.
      Conflict-Of-Interest Statement: The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest relating to this study.
    • Contributed Indexing:
      Keywords: CAD/CAM; dental implants; foil; guided bone regeneration; mesh
    • Accession Number:
      9002-84-0 (Polytetrafluoroethylene)
      D1JT611TNE (Titanium)
      0 (Membranes, Artificial)
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20240916 Date Completed: 20240916 Latest Revision: 20241024
    • Publication Date:
      20241024
    • Accession Number:
      39283222