Complication, vertical bone gain, volumetric changes after vertical ridge augmentation using customized reinforced PTFE mesh or Ti-mesh. A non-inferiority randomized clinical trial

IF 4.8 1区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Clinical Oral Implants Research Pub Date : 2024-08-23 DOI:10.1111/clr.14350

Alessandro Cucchi, Sofia Bettini, Lucia Tedeschi, Istvan Urban, Debora Franceschi, Antonino Fiorino, Giuseppe Corinaldesi

{"title":"Complication, vertical bone gain, volumetric changes after vertical ridge augmentation using customized reinforced PTFE mesh or Ti-mesh. A non-inferiority randomized clinical trial","authors":"Alessandro Cucchi, Sofia Bettini, Lucia Tedeschi, Istvan Urban, Debora Franceschi, Antonino Fiorino, Giuseppe Corinaldesi","doi":"10.1111/clr.14350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>The aim of this non-inferiority randomized clinical trial was to compare the surgical and healing complications, vertical bone gain, and volumetric bone changes after vertical ridge augmentation using two different approaches: customized Ti-reinforced d-PTFE mesh versus customized CAD/CAM Ti-mesh.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Fifty patients with vertical bone defects were randomly treated with Ti-reinforced d-PTFE mesh (control group) or CAD/CAM Ti-mesh (test group) and a mix of autogenous bone and deproteinized bovine bone matrix. Surgical and healing complication rates (SCR-HCR), vertical bone gain (VBG), regenerated bone volume (RBV), and regeneration rates (RR and ERR) were recorded and analysed [significance level (α) of 0.05].</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Of the 50 patients, 48 underwent bone augmentation surgery. SCR were 4% and 12% in PTFE and Ti-mesh, whereas HCR were 12.5% and 8.3%. VBG were 5.79 ± 1.71 mm (range: 3.2–8.8 mm) in the PTFE group and 5.18 ± 1.61 mm (range: 3.1–8.0 mm) in the Ti-mesh group (<i>p</i> = .233), whereas RBV were 1.46 ± 0.48 cc and 1.26 ± 0.55. RR was 99.5% and 87.0%, demonstrating a statistically significant difference (<i>p</i> = .013). Finally, the values related to pseudo-periosteum, bone density, and implant stability were similar in the two study groups. Osseointegration rates were 98.2% and 98.3%.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>This study confirmed the non-inferiority of customized CAD/CAM titanium meshes with respect to reinforced PTFE meshes in terms of surgical and healing complications. Although PTFE meshes showed higher vertical bone gain and regeneration rates than Ti-meshes, no significant differences were found.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"35 12","pages":"1616-1639"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11629450/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.14350","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this non-inferiority randomized clinical trial was to compare the surgical and healing complications, vertical bone gain, and volumetric bone changes after vertical ridge augmentation using two different approaches: customized Ti-reinforced d-PTFE mesh versus customized CAD/CAM Ti-mesh.

Materials and Methods

Fifty patients with vertical bone defects were randomly treated with Ti-reinforced d-PTFE mesh (control group) or CAD/CAM Ti-mesh (test group) and a mix of autogenous bone and deproteinized bovine bone matrix. Surgical and healing complication rates (SCR-HCR), vertical bone gain (VBG), regenerated bone volume (RBV), and regeneration rates (RR and ERR) were recorded and analysed [significance level (α) of 0.05].

Results

Of the 50 patients, 48 underwent bone augmentation surgery. SCR were 4% and 12% in PTFE and Ti-mesh, whereas HCR were 12.5% and 8.3%. VBG were 5.79 ± 1.71 mm (range: 3.2–8.8 mm) in the PTFE group and 5.18 ± 1.61 mm (range: 3.1–8.0 mm) in the Ti-mesh group (p = .233), whereas RBV were 1.46 ± 0.48 cc and 1.26 ± 0.55. RR was 99.5% and 87.0%, demonstrating a statistically significant difference (p = .013). Finally, the values related to pseudo-periosteum, bone density, and implant stability were similar in the two study groups. Osseointegration rates were 98.2% and 98.3%.

Conclusions

This study confirmed the non-inferiority of customized CAD/CAM titanium meshes with respect to reinforced PTFE meshes in terms of surgical and healing complications. Although PTFE meshes showed higher vertical bone gain and regeneration rates than Ti-meshes, no significant differences were found.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

使用定制强化聚四氟乙烯网或钛网进行垂直脊增量术后的并发症、垂直骨增量和体积变化。非劣效性随机临床试验。

目的这项非劣效性随机临床试验旨在比较使用两种不同方法（定制的 Ti-reinforced d-PTFE 网片和定制的 CAD/CAM Ti-mesh）进行垂直骨嵴增量术后的手术和愈合并发症、垂直骨增量和骨体积变化：50名垂直骨缺损患者随机接受了钛增强d-PTFE网（对照组）或CAD/CAM钛网（试验组）以及自体骨和去蛋白牛骨基质的混合治疗。记录并分析了手术和愈合并发症发生率（SCR-HCR）、垂直骨增量（VBG）、再生骨量（RBV）和再生率（RR 和 ERR）[显著性水平（α）为 0.05]：结果：50 名患者中有 48 人接受了骨质增生手术。聚四氟乙烯和钛网的SCR分别为4%和12%，而HCR分别为12.5%和8.3%。PTFE 组的 VBG 为 5.79 ± 1.71 mm（范围：3.2-8.8 mm），Ti-mesh 组为 5.18 ± 1.61 mm（范围：3.1-8.0 mm）（p = .233），而 RBV 分别为 1.46 ± 0.48 cc 和 1.26 ± 0.55。RR分别为99.5%和87.0%，差异具有统计学意义（p = .013）。最后，假骨膜、骨密度和种植体稳定性的相关数值在两组研究中相似。骨结合率分别为98.2%和98.3%：这项研究证实，在手术和愈合并发症方面，CAD/CAM 定制钛网与增强聚四氟乙烯网相比并无劣势。虽然聚四氟乙烯网片比钛网片显示出更高的垂直骨增量和再生率，但并未发现显著差异。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Clinical Oral Implants Research 医学-工程：生物医学

CiteScore

7.70

自引率

11.60%

发文量

149

审稿时长

3 months

期刊介绍： Clinical Oral Implants Research conveys scientific progress in the field of implant dentistry and its related areas to clinicians, teachers and researchers concerned with the application of this information for the benefit of patients in need of oral implants. The journal addresses itself to clinicians, general practitioners, periodontists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons and prosthodontists, as well as to teachers, academicians and scholars involved in the education of professionals and in the scientific promotion of the field of implant dentistry.