Abstract
Background: The aim of the present prospective case series study was to evaluate the implant and prosthetic survival rates, complications and marginal bone loss using ultra-fine titanium mesh membrane with simultaneous implant placement, to provide space maintenance mandatory for guided bone reconstruction of alveolar bone defects. Materials and Methods: patients were recruited and treated at a private clinic in Rome, Italy, between March 2016 and October 2017. Self-tapping tapered implants were placed through a computer-guided template-assisted approach. Autogenous bone was placed alone over the exposed implant surface, then mixed with inorganic bovine bone material. Finally, the membrane was connected and shaped in order to securely enclose the graft area, and the healing cap was connected and screwed onto the height connector. Outcome measures were: implant and prosthetic failure, biological and mechanical complications, marginal and volumetric bone level changes, esthetic evaluation performed according to the pink aesthetic score (PES). Results: in total, seven patients (five women, two men) with a mean age of 52.7 ± 20.3 years (range: 27–71) received 10 self-tapping tapered implants and simultaneous guided bone regeneration with ultra-fine titanium mesh membranes. No implants and no prostheses failed during the entire follow-up period. One slightly membrane exposure was observed one month after implant placement in one patient. The mean marginal bone loss (MBL) at implant loading was 0.13 ± 0.09 mm (95% CI 0.08–0.19). At the 18-month follow-up examination, the mean MBL was 0.28 ± 0.33 mm (95% CI 0.07–0.50) The difference was not statistically significant (0.15 ± 0.31; 95% CI 0.05–0.35; P = 0.1888). The mean horizontal alveolar ridge width was 3.72 ± 1.08 mm (95% CI 3.22–4.22 mm). At the II-stage surgery, the mean bone width was 8.79 ± 0.98 mm (95% CI 8.51–9.07 mm). The mean bone gain was 5.06 ± 1.13 mm (95% CI 4.68–5.44 mm; P = 0.000). The mean volume of the grafted bone calculated using the superimposition technique was 0.99 ± 0.38 CC (95% CI 0.75–1.23 CC). The mean PES at implant loading was 8.2 ± 0.8 mm (95% CI 7.7–8.7). At the 18-month follow-up examination, the mean PES was 12.0 ± 0.7 mm (95% CI 11.5–12.5) The difference was statistically significant (3.8 ± 0.4; 95% CI 3.5–4.1; P = 0.0000); Conclusion: with the limitation of the present prospective study, the guided bone reconstruction using an ultra-fine titanium mesh membrane with simultaneous implant placement seems to provide good and stable results in implant/prosthesis success. Further research with a longer follow-up and a higher sample size are needed to confirm the results from this preliminary report.
Highlights
Alveolar bone atrophy is a chronic and progressive clinical situation characterized by moderate to severe loss of bone volume due to teeth loss or extraction [1]
Guided bone reconstruction is usually performed in two stages or with a submerged implant protocol when performed one-stage
The membrane could be removed at implant placement or at second stage if guided bone regeneration (GBR) was done at same time as the implant
Summary
Alveolar bone atrophy is a chronic and progressive clinical situation characterized by moderate to severe loss of bone volume due to teeth loss or extraction [1]. Local conditions or diseases, such as, traumatic extraction, periodontal disease, and trauma, could magnify this pathological condition, making dental implants placement difficult or unfavorable from both a functional and aesthetic perspective [2]. To overcome these possible drawbacks, bone reconstruction techniques have been introduced. Thereby, the barrier effect of the membrane should permit only to the osteogenic cells, derived from the surrounding bone and vessels, to move into the bone defect allowing for bone formation through the presence of stimulating signals Both resorbable and non-resorbable membranes have been used to isolate and maintain a correct and planned biological scaffold, needed for the formation of new bone tissue. Results: in total, seven patients (five women, two men) with a mean age of 52.7 ± 20.3 years (range: 27–71)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
