Retrospective Radiographic analysis of ridge augmentations using Titanium mesh and Titanium-reinforced polytetrafluoroethylene membranes.

Lina Elnakka, Janina Golob Deeb, Caroline K Carrico, Aniket Jadhav, Anusha Vaddi, George R Deeb
{"title":"Retrospective Radiographic analysis of ridge augmentations using Titanium mesh and Titanium-reinforced polytetrafluoroethylene membranes.","authors":"Lina Elnakka, Janina Golob Deeb, Caroline K Carrico, Aniket Jadhav, Anusha Vaddi, George R Deeb","doi":"10.1563/aaid-joi-D-24-00155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Titanium-reinforced polytetrafluoroethylene (Ti-PTFE) and Titanium mesh (Timesh) are used to augment atrophic alveolar ridges to facilitate the placement of dental implants. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the average vertical and horizontal bone gain and outcomes between Ti-PTFE and Ti-mesh techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To assess outcomes, retrospective chart review and superimposition of pre-operative and post-operative CBCT scans were used. The vertical component of the augmented site (L1) was assessed along a vertical bisecting line. Horizontal width was measured in buccolingual dimension at three-millimeter (mm) intervals (W1-6) along the L1. Paired t-tests were used to compare bone measurements at each location, and ANCOVA models were used to compare the grafting methods. Successes were compared with chi-squared tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-eight ridge augmentation cases with 70 sites were included: 25 Ti-PTFE with 35 sites and 23 Ti-mesh with 35 sites. The average gain in length (L1) was statistically significant for Ti-PTFE, 0.75 mm, and non-statistically significant for Ti-mesh, 0.61mm. The average increase in width for Ti-PTFE was 2.05 mm, while for Ti-mesh, it was 2.42 mm. After adjusting for pre-operative bone levels, Ti-PTFE had significantly greater gains at W1 than Ti-mesh. 76% of the cases were considered successes, with 74% for Ti-PTFE and 77% for Ti-mesh with no statistically significant difference.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both ridge augmentation techniques resulted in reliable horizontal bone gains, while a wide range of outcomes was observed for vertical bone gains. The average success rate was 76%, with no statistically significant difference between the two techniques.</p>","PeriodicalId":519890,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of oral implantology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of oral implantology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-24-00155","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Titanium-reinforced polytetrafluoroethylene (Ti-PTFE) and Titanium mesh (Timesh) are used to augment atrophic alveolar ridges to facilitate the placement of dental implants. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the average vertical and horizontal bone gain and outcomes between Ti-PTFE and Ti-mesh techniques.

Methods: To assess outcomes, retrospective chart review and superimposition of pre-operative and post-operative CBCT scans were used. The vertical component of the augmented site (L1) was assessed along a vertical bisecting line. Horizontal width was measured in buccolingual dimension at three-millimeter (mm) intervals (W1-6) along the L1. Paired t-tests were used to compare bone measurements at each location, and ANCOVA models were used to compare the grafting methods. Successes were compared with chi-squared tests.

Results: Forty-eight ridge augmentation cases with 70 sites were included: 25 Ti-PTFE with 35 sites and 23 Ti-mesh with 35 sites. The average gain in length (L1) was statistically significant for Ti-PTFE, 0.75 mm, and non-statistically significant for Ti-mesh, 0.61mm. The average increase in width for Ti-PTFE was 2.05 mm, while for Ti-mesh, it was 2.42 mm. After adjusting for pre-operative bone levels, Ti-PTFE had significantly greater gains at W1 than Ti-mesh. 76% of the cases were considered successes, with 74% for Ti-PTFE and 77% for Ti-mesh with no statistically significant difference.

Conclusion: Both ridge augmentation techniques resulted in reliable horizontal bone gains, while a wide range of outcomes was observed for vertical bone gains. The average success rate was 76%, with no statistically significant difference between the two techniques.

钛网和钛增强聚四氟乙烯膜脊增强的回顾性放射学分析。
背景:钛增强聚四氟乙烯(Ti-PTFE)和钛网(Timesh)被用来增加萎缩的牙槽嵴,以促进种植体的放置。本研究旨在评估和比较钛-聚四氟乙烯和钛网技术的平均垂直和水平骨增重和结果。方法:采用回顾性图表回顾和术前、术后CBCT扫描叠加的方法评价疗效。沿着垂直平分线评估增强位点(L1)的垂直分量。沿L1以3毫米(mm)间隔(W1-6)测量舌颊尺寸水平宽度。配对t检验用于比较每个位置的骨测量值,ANCOVA模型用于比较移植方法。成功案例用卡方检验进行比较。结果:48例70个部位的隆脊术,其中Ti-PTFE 25例35个部位,Ti-mesh 23例35个部位。Ti-PTFE的平均长度增加(L1)有统计学意义,为0.75 mm,而Ti-mesh的平均长度增加(L1)无统计学意义,为0.61mm。Ti-PTFE的平均宽度增加为2.05 mm,而Ti-mesh的平均宽度增加为2.42 mm。在调整术前骨水平后,Ti-PTFE在W1的增益明显大于Ti-mesh。76%的病例被认为是成功的,其中Ti-PTFE为74%,Ti-mesh为77%,没有统计学上的显著差异。结论:两种嵴增强技术均可获得可靠的水平骨增长,而垂直骨增长则有广泛的结果。两种方法的平均成功率为76%,差异无统计学意义。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信