Abstract
Bone augmentation procedures represent a real clinical challenge. One option is the use of titanium meshes. Additive manufacturing techniques can provide custom-made devices in titanium alloy. The purpose of this study was to investigate the material used, which can influence the outcomes of the bone augmentation procedure. Specific test samples were obtained from two different manufacturers with two different shapes: surfaces without perforations and with calibrated perforations. Three-point bending tests were run as well as internal friction tests to verify the Young’s modulus. Test samples were placed in two different buffered solutions and analyzed with optical microscopy. A further SEM analysis was done to observe any microstructural modification. Three-point flexural tests were conducted on 12 specimens. Initial bending was observed at lower applied stresses for the perforated samples (503 MPa) compared to non-perforated ones (900 MPa); the ultimate flexural strength was registered at 513 MPa and 1145 MPa for perforated and non-perforated samples, respectively. Both microscopic analyses (optical and SEM) showed no significant alterations. Conclusions: A normal masticatory load cannot modify the device. Chemical action in the case of exposure does not create macroscopic and microscopic alterations of the surface.
Highlights
The use of dental implants is a very common procedure [1]
Specific test samples produced with the laser sintering technique used for customized implantable titanium meshes were obtained from two different manufacturers, BoneEasy (Arada, Ovar, Portugal) and Biotek specimens (BTK) (Vicenza, Italy), and came with two different shapes: surfaces without perforations and with calibrated perforations 1.2 mm in diameter
Within the limitations of this study, it can be assessed that a normal masticatory load cannot modify the device
Summary
The use of dental implants is a very common procedure [1]. Patients may present alveolar ridge defects as a consequence of periodontal disease, dental trauma, traumatic extraction, or genetic anomalies, which do not allow the correct implant position [3,4]. The basic principle of GBR involves placing a mechanical barrier to protect the blood clot and to isolate the bony defect from the surrounding connective and epithelial tissue invasion. This space is needed to allow the osteoblasts to access the space intended for bone regeneration. The use of a barrier membrane, especially a resorbable one, has the advantage of facilitating the procedure, but often the shape of the defect itself may create a collapse of the barrier and the loss of the “space maintaining” effect [8]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 call
