Treatment of Atrophic Ridges with Titanium Mesh: A Retrospective Study Using 100% Mineralized Allograft and Comparing Dental Stone Versus 3D-Printed Models

Chaar, Edgard El; Urtula, A. Brian; Georgantza, Aiketrini; Cruz, Stephanie; Fallah-Abed, Pooria; Castaño, Alejandro Carrero; Abitbol, T; Warner, Michael M

doi:10.11607/prd.3733

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Reason for Exclusion Aghazadeh et al, 2012 [140] Application of granular autograft Arenaz-Búa et al, 2010 [141] Application of granular autograft Barboza et al, 2010 [142] Application of allogeneic bone granules Beitlitum et al, 2018 [143] Application of allogeneic bone granules Bianconi et al, 2017 [144] Alveolar ridge preservation Charde et al, 2020 [145] Block used for peri-implant bone regeneration Naishlos et al, 2021 [146] Blocks used for sinus floor augmentation Corinaldesi et al, 2009 [147] Application of autogenous bone granules El Chaar et al, 2019 [148] Application of allogeneic bone granules Ge et al, 2017 [149] Application of granular autograft Güven and Tekin, 2006 [150] Wrong indication (cyst filling) Huang et al, 2016 [151] Application of allogeneic bone granules Ilankovan et al, 1998 [152] No outcome of interest reported Jacotti et al, 2012 [153] Sample size too small Kang et al, 2015 [154] Particulated iliac bone applied with sinus lift Khoury and Hanser, 2015 [155] No outcome of interest reported Krasny et al, 2018 [156] Inclusion of patients with follow-up of less than 12 months Lekholm et al, 1999 [157] Application of different surgical approaches, missing patient information [160] Application of granular materials Merli et al, 2020 [161] Application of granular grafting materials Morad and Khojasteh, 2013 [162] Sample size too small Mordenfeld et al, 2017 [163] Application of granular autograft Özkan et al, 2007 [164] Sample size too small Pimentel et al, 2014 [165] Sample size too small Putters et al, 2018 [166] No outcome of interest reported Quereshy et al, 2010 [167] Sample size too small Sethi et al, 2020 [168] Inclusion of patients with follow-up < 12 months Simion et al, 2001 [169] Application of granular materials Simon et al, 2000 [170] Surgical technique (ARP) Soehardi et al, 2009 [171] No differentiation between onlay block and sinus floor elevation Solakoglu et al, 2019 …”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…List of excluded studies with reasons for exclusion. Aghazadeh et al, 2012 [140] Application of granular autograft Arenaz-Búa et al, 2010 [141] Application of granular autograft Barboza et al, 2010 [142] Application of allogeneic bone granules Beitlitum et al, 2018 [143] Application of allogeneic bone granules Bianconi et al, 2017 [144] Alveolar ridge preservation Charde et al, 2020 [145] Block used for peri-implant bone regeneration Naishlos et al, 2021 [146] Blocks used for sinus floor augmentation Corinaldesi et al, 2009 [147] Application of autogenous bone granules El Chaar et al, 2019 [148] Application of allogeneic bone granules Ge et al, 2017 [149] Application of granular autograft Güven and Tekin, 2006 [150] Wrong indication (cyst filling) Huang et al, 2016 [151] Application of allogeneic bone granules Ilankovan et al, 1998 [152] No outcome of interest reported Jacotti et al, 2012 [153] Sample size too small Kang et al, 2015 [154] Particulated iliac bone applied with sinus lift Khoury and Hanser, 2015 [155] No outcome of interest reported Krasny et al, 2018 [156] Inclusion of patients with follow-up of less than 12 months Lekholm et al, 1999 [157] Application of different surgical approaches, missing patient information Lima et al, 2018 [158] Sample size too small…”

Section: Fundingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Survival Rates of Dental Implants in Autogenous and Allogeneic Bone Blocks: A Systematic Review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives: Preliminary studies emphasize the similar performance of autogenous bone blocks (AUBBs) and allogeneic bone blocks (ALBBs) in pre-implant surgery; however, most of these studies include limited subjects or hold a low level of evidence. The purpose of this review is to test the hypothesis of indifferent implant survival rates (ISRs) in AUBB and ALBB and determine the impact of various material-, surgery- and patient-related confounders and predictors. Materials and Methods: The national library of medicine (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were screened for studies reporting the ISRs of implants placed in AUBB and ALBB with ≥10 participants followed for ≥12 months from January 1995 to November 2021. The review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The risk of bias was assessed via several scoring tools, dependent on the study design. Means of sub-entities were presented as violin plots. Results: An electronic data search resulted in the identification of 9233 articles, of which 100 were included in the quantitative analysis. No significant difference (p = 0.54) was found between the ISR of AUBB (96.23 ± 5.27%; range: 75% to 100%; 2195 subjects, 6861 implants) and that of ALBB (97.66 ± 2.68%; range: 90.1% to 100%; 1202 subjects, 3434 implants). The ISR in AUBB was increased in blocks from intraoral as compared to extraoral donor sites (p = 0.0003), partially edentulous as compared to totally edentulous (p = 0.0002), as well as in patients younger than 45 as compared to those older (p = 0.044), cortical as compared to cortico-cancellous blocks (p = 0.005) and in delayed implantations within three months as compared to immediate implantations (p = 0.018). The ISR of ALBB was significantly increased in processed as compared to fresh-frozen ALBB (p = 0.004), but also in horizontal as compared to vertical augmentations (p = 0.009). Conclusions: The present findings widely emphasize the feasibility of achieving similar ISRs with AUBB and ALBB applied for pre-implant bone grafting. ISRs were negatively affected in sub-entities linked to more extensive augmentation procedures such as bone donor site and dentition status. The inclusion and pooling of literature with a low level of evidence, the absence of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing AUBB and ALBB and the limited count of comparative studies with short follow-ups increases the risk of bias and complicates data interpretation. Consequently, further long-term comparative studies are needed.

show abstract

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Fundingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survival Rates of Dental Implants in Autogenous and Allogeneic Bone Blocks: A Systematic Review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…35,84,143 Patient-specific (customized) titanium mesh can be designed and manufactured via computer assisted system to better accommodate and tailored based on the bony defect morphology. 44,115 However, further investigation is needed regarding the custom designed meshes and their clinical outcome as deviation from the desired design can occur during fabrication. 59,79 Common complications from using titanium mesh in bone regeneration include mesh exposure (15%-36%), 32,92 infection, and total or partial bone resorption.…”

Section: Titanium Meshmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simultaneous or staged lateral ridge augmentation: A clinical guideline on the decision‐making process

Yu,

Saleh,

Wang

2023

Periodontology 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lateral ridge augmentation is a standard surgical procedure that can be performed prior to (staged) or simultaneously with implant placement. The decision between a simultaneous or staged approach involves considering multiple variables. This paper proposed a decision‐making process that serves as a guideline for choosing the best treatment choice based on the available evidence and the author's clinical experience.

show abstract

“…One method is bending a commercial Ti mesh on a 3D printed augmented alveolar bone model ( Li S. et al, 2021 ). EI Chaar et al proposed a similar method ( El Chaar et al, 2019 ). First, they prototyped a preoperative alveolar bone model and then used wax to raise the alveolar ridge contour before bending the Ti mesh.…”

Section: Advances In 3d Printed Barrier Membrane For Guided Bone Rege...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Customized Barrier Membrane (Titanium Alloy, Poly Ether-Ether Ketone and Unsintered Hydroxyapatite/Poly-l-Lactide) for Guided Bone Regeneration

Shi

Liu

et al. 2022

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sufficient bone volume is indispensable to achieve functional and aesthetic results in the fields of oral oncology, trauma, and implantology. Currently, guided bone regeneration (GBR) is widely used in reconstructing the alveolar ridge and repairing bone defects owing to its low technical sensitivity and considerable osteogenic effect. However, traditional barrier membranes such as collagen membranes or commercial titanium mesh cannot meet clinical requirements, such as lack of space-preserving ability, or may lead to more complications. With the development of digitalization and three-dimensional printing technology, the above problems can be addressed by employing customized barrier membranes to achieve space maintenance, precise predictability of bone graft, and optimization of patient-specific strategies. The article reviews the processes and advantages of three-dimensional computer-assisted surgery with GBR in maxillofacial reconstruction and alveolar bone augmentation; the properties of materials used in fabricating customized bone regeneration sheets; the promising bone regeneration potency of customized barrier membranes in clinical applications; and up-to-date achievements. This review aims to present a reference on the clinical aspects and future applications of customized barrier membranes.

show abstract

Treatment of Atrophic Ridges with Titanium Mesh: A Retrospective Study Using 100% Mineralized Allograft and Comparing Dental Stone Versus 3D-Printed Models

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

Survival Rates of Dental Implants in Autogenous and Allogeneic Bone Blocks: A Systematic Review

Survival Rates of Dental Implants in Autogenous and Allogeneic Bone Blocks: A Systematic Review

Simultaneous or staged lateral ridge augmentation: A clinical guideline on the decision‐making process

Customized Barrier Membrane (Titanium Alloy, Poly Ether-Ether Ketone and Unsintered Hydroxyapatite/Poly-l-Lactide) for Guided Bone Regeneration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About