The Outcomes of Vertical Alveolar Bone Augmentation by Guided Bone Regeneration with Titanium Mesh: A Systematic Review
Nedal A Abu-Mostafa, Yasser N Alotaibi, Rose N Alkahtani, Farah K Almutairi, Amjad A Alfaifi, Osama D Alshahrani
Alveolar bone, Guided bone regeneration, Titanium mesh, Vertical bone augmentation
Citation Information :
Abu-Mostafa NA, Alotaibi YN, Alkahtani RN, Almutairi FK, Alfaifi AA, Alshahrani OD. The Outcomes of Vertical Alveolar Bone Augmentation by Guided Bone Regeneration with Titanium Mesh: A Systematic Review. J Contemp Dent Pract 2022; 23 (12):1280-1288.
Aim: This study aimed to systematically review the published studies on vertical alveolar bone augmentation (VABA) by guided bone regeneration (GBR) with titanium mesh (TM).
Background: Guided bone regeneration is a procedure that can be used for VABA of the alveolar ridge. Titanium mesh is used as a barrier due to its ability to maintain a space that the newly formed bone will occupy.
Materials and methods: A computerized literature search was conducted on the databases PubMed, SCOPUS, Science Direct, and Cochrane Library to review the published article on VABA by TM from 2011 to 2021.
Review results: Eight out of 574 retrieved articles were included in the qualitative analysis, three randomized clinical trials, two prospective clinical trials, and three retrospective trials. They were assessed for risk of bias using the critical appraisal skills program checklist. Titanium mesh was utilized as a barrier in three different ways, adapted directly on the alveolar bone, bent preoperatively on three-dimensional (3D) models, and 3D-printed. Two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) reported 20.8% bone gain, while the other studies reported the means ranging from 2.56 to 4.78 mm. All studies reported TM exposure that ranged from 7.69 to 66.66%. Exposure during the four postoperative weeks led to inadequate bone regeneration. However, late exposure had no effect or caused only slight bone resorption. Early TM removal was performed in two studies, one case per each, ranging from 2.4 to 11.1%. Infection was presented in three studies, one case per each, and the percentages were 5, 11.1, and 25%.
Conclusion: All types of TM had exposure, which was the most common complication, but early removal was indicated only in a few cases. Titanium mesh showed reliability and efficacy as a barrier for VABA by GBR.
Clinical significance: By this procedure, bone height can be restored, however, meticulous follow-up is recommended for the detection and management of TM exposures.
Mittal Y, Jindal G, Garg S. Bone manipulation procedures in dental implants. Indian J Dent 2016;7(2):86–94. DOI: 10.4103/0975-962X.184650.
Milinkovic I, Cordaro L. Are there specific indications for the different alveolar bone augmentation procedures for implant placement? A systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014;43(5):606–625. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2013.12.004.
French D, Grandin HM, Ofec R. Retrospective cohort study of 4,591 dental implants: Analysis of risk indicators for bone loss and prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. J Periodontol 2019;90(7):691–700. DOI: 10.1002/JPER.18-0236.
Grecchi F, Pagliani L, Mancini GE, et al. Implant treatment in grafted and native bone in patients affected by ectodermal dysplasia. J Craniofac Surg 2010;21(6):1776–1780. DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181f40378.
De Santis D, Cucchi A, Rigoni G, et al. Short implants with oxidized surface in posterior areas of atrophic jaws: 3- to 5-year results of a multicenter study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17(3):442–452. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12123.
Malik R, Gupta A, Bansal P, et al. Evaluation of alveolar ridge height gained by vertical ridge augmentation using titanium mesh and nova bone putty in posterior mandible. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2020;19(1):32–39. DOI: 10.1007/s12663-019-01250-9.
Dorosz N, Dominiak M. Mandibular ridge reconstruction: A review of contemporary methods. Adv Clin Exp Med 2018;27(8):1159–1168. DOI: 10.17219/acem/74054.
Rakhmatia YD, Ayukawa Y, Furuhashi A, et al. Current barrier membranes: Titanium mesh and other membranes for guided bone regeneration in dental applications. J Prosthodont Res 2013; 57(1):3–14. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2012.12.001.
D'Amato S, Tartaro G, Itro A, et al. Block versus particulate/titanium mesh for ridge augmentation for mandibular lateral incisor defects: Clinical and histologic analysis. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2015;35(1):e1–e8. DOI: 10.11607/prd.2073.
Solakoglu Ö, Heydecke G, Amiri N, et al. The use of plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF) in guided tissue regeneration and guided bone regeneration. A review of histological, immunohistochemical, histomorphometrical, radiological and clinical results in humans. Ann Anat 2020;231:151528. DOI: 10.1016/j.aanat.2020.151528.
Poli PP, Beretta M, Cicciù M, et al. Alveolar ridge augmentation with titanium mesh. A retrospective clinical study. Open Dent J 2014;8:148–158. DOI: 10.2174/1874210601408010148.
Mounir M, Mounir S, Abou-Elfetouh A, et al. Assessment of vertical ridge augmentation in anterior aesthetic zone using onlay xenografts with titanium mesh versus the inlay bone grafting technique: A randomized clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017;46(11):1458–1465. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2017.04.021.
Cucchi A, Vignudelli E, Napolitano A, et al. Evaluation of complication rates and vertical bone gain after guided bone regeneration with non-resorbable membranes versus titanium meshes and resorbable membranes. A randomized clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017;19(5):821–832. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12520.
Mounir M, Shalash M, Mounir S, et al. Assessment of three dimensional bone augmentation of severely atrophied maxillary alveolar ridges using prebent titanium mesh vs customized poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) mesh: A randomized clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019;21(5):960–967. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12748.
Ciocca L, Lizio G, Baldissara P, et al. Prosthetically CAD-CAM-guided bone augmentation of atrophic jaws using customized titanium mesh: Preliminary results of an open prospective study. J Oral Implantol 2018;44(2):131–137. DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-17-00125.
Li S, Zhao J, Xie Y, et al. Hard tissue stability after guided bone regeneration: A comparison between digital titanium mesh and resorbable membrane. Int J Oral Sci 2021;13:37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41368-021-00143-3.
Her S, Kang T, Fien MJ. Titanium mesh as an alternative to a membrane for ridge augmentation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;70(4):803–810. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2011.11.017.
Chiapasco M, Casentini P, Tommasato G, et al. Customized CAD/CAM titanium meshes for the guided bone regeneration of severe alveolar ridge defects: Preliminary results of a retrospective clinical study in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res 2021;32(4):498–510. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13720.
Jonasson G, Skoglund I, Rythén M. The rise and fall of the alveolar process: Dependency of teeth and metabolic aspects. Arch Oral Biol 2018;96:195–200. DOI: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2018.09.016.
Zhang S, Li X, Qi Y, et al. Comparison of autogenous tooth materials and other bone grafts. Tissue Eng Regen Med 2021;18(3): 327–341. DOI: 10.1007/s13770-021-00333-4.
Mahato NK. Characterization of cortico-cancellous bone along the iliac crest: Focus on graft harvesting. Surg Radiol Anat 2011;33(5):433–437. DOI: 10.1007/s00276-010-0752-z.
Nkenke E, Neukam FW. Autogenous bone harvesting and grafting in advanced jaw resorption: Morbidity, resorption and implant survival. Eur J Oral Implantol 2014;7(2):S203–S217. PMID: 24977256.
Eppley BL, Pietrzak WS, Blanton MW. Allograft and alloplastic bone substitutes: A review of science and technology for the craniomaxillofacial surgeon. J Craniofac Surg 2005;16(6):981–989. DOI: 10.1097/01.scs.0000179662.38172.dd.
Dimitriou R, Jones E, McGonagle D, et al. Bone regeneration: Current concepts and future directions. BMC Med 2011;9:66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-9-66.
Di Stefano DA, Greco GB, Cinci L, et al. Horizontal-guided bone regeneration using a titanium mesh and an equine bone graft. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015;16(2):154–162. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1653.
Ronda M, Rebaudi A, Torelli L, et al. Expanded vs dense polytetrafluoroethylene membranes in vertical ridge augmentation around dental implants: A prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25(7):859–866. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12157.
Merli M, Moscatelli M, Mariotti G, et al. Bone level variation after vertical ridge augmentation: Resorbable barriers versus titanium-reinforced barriers. A 6-year double-blind randomized clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29(4):905–913. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.3203.
Briguglio F, Falcomatà D, Marconcini S, et al. The use of titanium mesh in guided bone regeneration: A systematic review. Int J Dent 2019;2019:9065423. DOI: 10.1155/2019/9065423.
De Moraes PH, Olate S, Albergaria-Barbosa JR. Maxillary reconstruction using rhBMP-2 and titanium mesh. Technical note about the use of stereolithographic model. Int J Odont 2015;9(1):149–152. DOI:10.4067/S0718-381X2015000100022.
Sumida T, Otawa N, Kamata YU, et al. Custom-made titanium devices as membranes for bone augmentation in implant treatment: Clinical application and the comparison with conventional titanium mesh. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015;43(10):2183–2188. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2015.10.020.
Gutta R, Baker RA, Bartolucci AA, et al. Barrier membranes used for ridge augmentation: Is there an optimal pore size? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;67(6):1218–1225. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2008.11.022.
Freitas RM, Spin-Neto R, Marcantonio Junior E, et al. Alveolar ridge and maxillary sinus augmentation using rhBMP-2: A systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17 Suppl 1: e192–e201. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12156.
Park SH, Wang HL. Clinical significance of incision location on guided bone regeneration: Human study. J Periodontol 2007;78(1):47–51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2007.060125.
Elnayef B, Monje A, Gargallo-Albiol J, et al. Vertical ridge augmentation zin the atrophic mandible: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017;32(2):291–312. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.4861.
Watzinger F, Luksch J, Millesi W, et al. Guided bone regeneration with titanium membranes: A clinical study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000;38(4):312–315. DOI: 10.1054/bjom.1999.0228.
Sagheb K, Schiegnitz E, Moergel M, et al. Clinical outcome of alveolar ridge augmentation with individualized CAD-CAM-produced titanium mesh. Int J Implant Dent 2017;3(1):36. DOI: 10.1186/s40729-017-0097-z.
Seiler M, Peetz M, Hartmann A, et al. Individualized CAD/CAM-produced titanium scaffolds for alveolar bone augmentation: A retrospective analysis of dehiscence events in relation to demographic and surgical parameters. J Oral Science Rehabilitation 2018;4(1):38–46.
Zhang T, Zhang T, Cai X. The application of a newly designed L-shaped titanium mesh for GBR with simultaneous implant placement in the esthetic zone: A retrospective case series study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019;21(5):862–872. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12726.
Li L, Wang C, Li X, et al. Research on the dimensional accuracy of customized bone augmentation combined with 3D-printing individualized titanium mesh: A retrospective case series study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2021;23(1):5–18. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12966.
De Santis D, Gelpi F, Verlato G, et al. Digital customized titanium mesh for bone regeneration of vertical, horizontal and combined defects: A case series. Medicina (Kaunas) 2021;57(1):60. DOI: 10.3390/medicina57010060.
Funato A, Ishikawa T, Kitajima H, et al. A novel combined surgical approach to vertical alveolar ridge augmentation with titanium mesh, resorbable membrane, and rhPDGF-BB: Aretrospective consecutive case series. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2013;33(4):437–445. DOI: 10.11607/prd.1460.
Casap N, Rushinek H, Jensen OT. Vertical alveolar augmentation using BMP-2/ACS/Allograft with printed titanium shells to establish an early vascular scaffold. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2019;31(3):473–487. DOI: 10.1016/j.coms.2019.03.009.