Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI
Dentistry JournalDentistry Journal
PDF
  • Systematic Review
  • Open Access

23 January 2025

The Early Exposure Rate and Vertical Bone Gain of Titanium Mesh for Maxillary Bone Regeneration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

,
,
,
and
1
Department of Innovative Technologies in Medicine & Dentistry, University of Chieti-Pescara, 66100 Chieti, Italy
2
Department of Research, Bioface/PgO/UCAM, Montevideo 11100, Uruguay
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Dent. J.2025, 13(2), 52;https://doi.org/10.3390/dj13020052
This article belongs to the Topic Oral Health Management and Disease Treatment
Version Notes
Order Reprints
Review Reports

Abstract

Background/Objectives: The use of titanium meshes in bone regeneration is a clinical procedure that regenerates bone defects by ensuring graft stability and biocompatibility. The aim of the present investigation was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of titanium mesh procedures in terms of vertical bone gain and the exposure rate. Methods: The product screening and eligibility analysis were performed using the Pubmed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Google Scholar electronic databases by two authors. The selected articles were classified based on the study design, regenerative technique, tested groups and materials, sample size, clinical findings, and follow-up. A risk of bias calculation was conducted on the selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized trials and a series of pairwise meta-analysis calculations were performed for the vertical bone gain (VBG) and exposure rate. A significantly lower exposure rate was observed using coronally advanced lingual flaps (p < 0.05). No difference was observed between the titanium mesh and GBR techniques in terms of VBG (p > 0.05). Results: The initial search output 288 articles, and 164 papers were excluded after the eligibility analysis. The descriptive synthesis considered a total of 97 papers and 6 articles were considered for the pairwise comparison. Conclusions: Within the limits of the present investigation, the titanium mesh procedure reported high VBG values after the healing period. The mesh exposure rate was drastically lower with passive management of the surgical flap.

1. Introduction

The treatment of severe bone ridge atrophies represents a complex clinical challenge in oral surgery due to the dysmorphic alteration of the oral tissues and the loss of support for implant rehabilitation [1,2,3]. Alveolar bone defects are commonly due to the loss of teeth, and from dentofacial traumas, neoplasms, and cyst expansion and removal defects, while the resorption rate could be severely increased other factors including infections and passive loading by an incongruous prosthesis [4,5]. On the other hand, different resorption patterns have been described between the horizontal and vertical components of the bone ridges of both the mandibular and maxillary ridges [2,4,5,6,7]. For this purpose, several different bone augmentation procedures for increasing the bone volume have been purposed including inlay/onlay bone grafts, bone distraction, guided bone regeneration, and titanium meshes [8,9,10,11]. Guided bone augmentation procedures are accomplished using the creation of a regenerative space based on scaffold positioning to stabilize the blood clot [12]. The addition of a covering made of collagen membranes has been used to compartmentalize the oral tissue components to restore the oral tissues’ anatomical morphology [6,13]. In the literature, this is described as the application of a non-resorbable membrane (i.e., polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)) or resorbable membrane (i.e., collagen) [14,15,16]. Historically, non-resorbable and titanium-reinforced membranes were used for guided bone regeneration procedures in the late 1980s due to their high mechanical stability and ability to maintain spaces [17]. Limitations of this technique include the necessity for a second surgery to remove the mesh and the tendency for exposure during the healing period [17]. Titanium meshes are a space-making device that have been used for the treatment of complex vertical defects due to the addition of a bone graft [11]. The theoretical advantage of titanium meshes is the presence of pores, which are able to create a favorable environment for the vascular sustenance and integration of the core graft [11,18]. Another interesting characteristic is the documented high biocompatibility of titanium, which prevents foreign body reactions and reduces the failure rate of the procedure [11,19]. Mechanically, the mesh is characterized by a high ductility due to the adaptation of the device to the bone defect area [11,19]. In addition, the device rigidity is able to guarantee a regenerative space during the healing phase and the graft integration process [11,19]. In the literature, the customization of titanium meshes through CAD/CAM has been used to increase the stability of regenerative devices and the on-chair procedure duration [20,21,22]. However, titanium meshes are technically sensitive and they are not free from complications. In fact, the main source of titanium mesh failure is from exposure of the mesh during the healing period, combined with contamination of the bone graft, which often irreversibly compromises the regenerative procedure [23]. The aim of the present systematic review was to investigate the clinical effectiveness of titanium meshes in bone regeneration procedures.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Screening of Scientific Articles

The literature search was performed following the criteria of the PICO guidelines (population, intervention, comparison, and outcome), as shown in Table 1. The data collected from the systematic search were processed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The present review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42024585970). The Boolean search was carried out according to the strategy described in Table 2 and performed on the PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar electronic databases (10 June 2024).
Table 1. Summary of the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, and outcome) model.
Table 2. Screening strategy using Boolean search.

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

In the initial screening phase, the identified studies were assessed based on the following inclusion criteria: human clinical trials, prospective or retrospective studies, case series or case reports, with no restriction on follow-up after surgical procedures or regarding the type of graft material mix used, and finally English-language papers.
The exclusion criteria were systematic literature reviews, editorial letters, in vitro studies, and animal studies. The evaluation of the manuscripts using the above criteria was performed for the purpose of including them in the eligibility analysis.

2.3. Screening Process

Two expert reviewers (FL and IA) independently and blindly performed the selection and screening of articles in order to identify scientific articles for the analysis processes. However, the articles that were excluded from the research work according to the criteria are reported in the paper as well as the justification for their exclusion.

2.4. Data Analysis

A database was specifically created using Excel software (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA) to enter the data collected from the included scientific studies. The collected data were classified according to the following characteristics: study design, sample size, regenerative technique, complications, biomaterial/resorbable membrane type, surgical flap technique, and follow-up.

2.5. Outcome Measures

The outcome measures considered for the data analysis were the occurrence of flap exposure during the bone regeneration healing period (<6 months), and the vertical bone height and horizontal bone gains calculated at the follow-up using computed tomography assessments.

2.6. Risk of Bias Assessment (RoB)

An RoB analysis was performed according to the OHAT Guidelines and Risk of Bias Rating Tool for Human and Animal Studies using Rev Man 5.5 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, 2014). Only the trials included for the meta-analysis process were submitted to the risk of bias assessment [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30]. The following guideline criteria were applied: randomization sequence, allocation concealment, blinding participants, blinding outcomes, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other biases. The RoB parameters were classified as adequate, unclear, or inadequate. The minimum RoB ratio was a total of 5/7 low risk (lr) indicators with/without unclear risk (ur) parameters. Otherwise, the articles were categorized as high risk (hr).

2.7. Meta-Analysis

A forest plot of the relative effects was generated to assess the consistency and the significance of the rankings. I2 < 40% was considered low heterogeneity. To guarantee valid pairwise comparisons, we selected studies with similar methodologies for further statistical calculations. Pairwise comparisons were performed for the titanium mesh group vs. membrane regeneration group and the coronally advanced lingual flap group vs. control group considering the site exposure and vertical bone gain (VBG) parameters. The exposure rate was expressed as an Odds Ratio (OR) and the VBG was expressed as the mean difference (MD).

3. Results

3.1. Screening Procedure

The search conducted using electronic databases (PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and Google Scholar) found 288 articles. The search did not detect duplicates so the scientific articles were submitted for eligibility evaluation. A total of 164 articles were excluded from the synthesis process for reasons such as being off-topic (114 articles), being in a different language (15 publications), using an animal model (41 scientific articles), and being a literature review (21 papers). As a result of the careful selection, a total of 97 scientific articles were included in the descriptive analysis and 6 articles were considered for the pairwise meta-analysis. This systematic literature review included retrospective case–control studies, prospective studies, cohort studies, case series and case reports, randomized controlled trials, non-RCTs, preliminary studies, and comparative studies (Figure 1; Table 2).
Figure 1. Screening flowchart for the investigated studies following the PRISMA guidelines. ** the step was performed by human with no automation tools.

3.2. Characteristics of the Included Studies

The descriptive synthesis reported that the most frequent grafts used for bone regeneration were autogenous bone and autogenous bone mixed with a heterologous bone graft. Some studies differed in the autogenous/heterologous mix ratio, which ranged from a ratio of 50:50 to 70:30 of autogenous bone and BBM (bovine bone mineral). The combination of platelet-rich plasma (PRP), collagen sponges (rhBMP-2 ÷ ACS), resorbable collagen membranes, and alloplastic materials mixed with a nano-bone graft was also reported (Table 3 and Table 4). The most frequent complication reported was mesh exposure that was correlated to a partial failure of the graft or, in some cases, a higher incidence of compromised bone grafts. Other reported complications were infection, total/partial bone resorption, temporary neurological disturbances, and implant failure. The follow-up results were heterogeneous since the follow-up time in the included studies ranged from 5 months to 20.5 years (Table 3 and Table 4).
Table 3. Studies included after the literature screening [RCT: randomized controlled trial; non-RCT: non-randomized controlled trial]. The synthesis was performed considering the regenerative methods, study model design, sample size, and test and control groups.
Table 4. Studies included after the literature screening. The synthesis was performed considering the technique, complications, bone graft study outcome, findings, and follow-up.

3.3. RoB Findings

The summary of the RoB assessment results is presented in Figure 2. According to the Cochrane Collaboration, most of the studies were considered to have a low risk of bias. According to the selection bias assessment, the findings were 71.4%lr and 28.6%hr regarding random sequence generation. The performance bias and detection bias analyses reported 28.6%lr and 71.4%ur for these studies. The attrition bias was 28.6%ur and 71.4%lr (Figure 3). A value of 100%lr was reported for the allocation concealment, selective reporting, and other biases.
Figure 2. Risk of bias graph: review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item, presented as percentages for all included studies.
Figure 3. Risk of bias summary: review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study [green light (+): low RoB; yellow light (?) uncertain RoB; red light (−): high RoB] [6,67,87,105,106,109].

3.4. Meta-Analysis Assessment

3.4.1. Titanium Mesh vs. Membrane GBR: Site Exposure

This assessment included four articles for a total of 130 participants (range: 20–40). The estimated effect was 2.56 [0.91; 7.20]. The heterogeneity test reported a Chi2 value of 0.91 and I2 of 0%. No significant differences between the study groups were reported in terms of exposure of the site during the healing period (p = 0.08) (Figure 4). The exposure ratio of the titanium mesh and GBR groups were, respectively, 21.53% and 9.23%.
Figure 4. Forest plot of comparison of exposure outcome for mesh group vs. GBR group [6,67,87,109].

3.4.2. Titanium Mesh vs. Membrane GBR: Vertical Bone Gain (VBG)

This assessment included four articles for a total of 130 participants (range: 20–40). The estimated effect was −0.12 [−0.81; 0.58]. The heterogeneity test reported a Chi2 value of 6.43 and I2 of 53%. No significant differences between the study groups were reported in terms of the VBG (p = 0.74) (Figure 5). The mean VBG of the titanium mesh and GBR groups were, respectively, 4.22 ± 1.68 and 4.42 ± 1.18.
Figure 5. Forest plot of comparison of vertical bone gain outcome for mesh group vs. GBR group [6,67,87,109].

3.4.3. Coronally Advanced Lingual Flap Site Exposure

This assessment included two articles for a total of 54 participants (range: 14–40). The estimated effect was 0.10 [0.01; 0.94]. The heterogeneity test reported a Chi2 value of 0.66 and I2 of 0%. Significant differences between the study groups were reported in terms of the exposure of the site during the healing period (p = 0.04) (Figure 6). The exposure ratios of the coronally advanced lingual flap and control groups were, respectively, 0% and 43.2%.
Figure 6. Forest plot of comparison of lingual flap release exposure [6,106].

3.4.4. Coronally Advanced Lingual Flap Vertical Bone Gain (VBG)

This assessment included two articles for a total of 54 participants (range: 14–40). The estimated effect was 0.91 [−0.89; 2.72]. The heterogeneity test reported a Chi2 value of 5.06 and I2 of 80%. No significant differences between the study groups were reported in terms of the VBG (p = 0.32) (Figure 7). The VBG of the coronally advanced lingual flap and control groups were, respectively, 3.68 ± 1.36 and 3.26 ± 1.47.
Figure 7. Forest plot of comparison of vertical bone gain (VBG) [105,106].

4. Discussion

The use of titanium mesh in the reconstruction of localized bone defects has been used with high reliability and very low exposure and complication rates [112]. Titanium mesh has been indicated for a wide range of clinical defects including peri-implant bone defects, maxillary atrophy, alveolar sockets, and periodontal defects, and for other therapeutic applications [90]. The literature documents its use in a small number of cases for more extensive defects that originate from neoplastic pathological processes, such as odontogenic keratocyst processes, and trauma treated with complete ostectomy, hemibulectomies, and completely disarticulated resections of mandible and mandibular rami [27,113]. There are documented cases of titanium mesh use in non-grafted sinus floor elevation [114]. Titanium meshes are high-performance devices with high biocompatibility; their the barrier effect can guide the healing processes in the absence of immune responses during healing [102]. The grids can be morphologically adapted to the defect which makes them highly specific and customizable; such customization can be achieved using laser sintering or CAD/CAM [102]. Titanium grids can be stabilized with microscrews on the sides of the membrane itself and can be equipped with holes that allow for a greater blood supply to the defect, bringing oxygen, nutrients, and immune cells into the defect, which are essential to ensure the success of osteogenesis. Studies have confirmed that macroporosity has effects on bone regeneration by ensuring a sufficient blood supply to the defect, stimulating osteogenesis due to the presence of the holes. It has been observed that titanium meshes do not interfere with blood flow [21]. In addition, the presence of the mesh, compared with the presence of resorbable membranes alone, ensures that the treatment is not compromised; thus, they are considered reliable for promoting new bone formation. The rigidity of the titanium mesh ensures stability and prevents the collapse of the membrane itself within the defect, a situation that is possible with the use of resorbable membranes alone [25,56,115]. In some cases of combination regenerative and implant therapies, the implants were placed concurrently with the titanium mesh; in other cases, the placement of the titanium mesh occurred in a second surgery after 8–9 months [107]. Regenerative procedures using titanium meshes resulted in significant bone regeneration in the narrow alveolar ridges, allowing for implant placement [39]. Regenerative site exposure seems to be one of the most common early and delayed complication during the healing period. The present investigation reported no significant differences in exposure rate for titanium mesh vs. membrane GBR procedures (p = 0.06). Fewer exposures were observed with the use of e-PTFE membranes to cover the titanium meshes [15]. Due to the tight spread of the study outcome and the limited number of selected articles, this aspect deserves more study to determine the exposure outcome. A critical point of the present investigation was to analyze the wide heterogeneity in methods including the treatment site and jaw region, defect extension, simultaneous/delayed implant positioning, graft materials, and additional screws and plates used.
Following to the Cochrane review methodology, the present review performed a search in multiple electronic databases. Due to the difficulties in finding MesH term indicators for this topic, the screening was conducted considering all clinical studies and without applying filters regarding the study design methodology for the full-text evaluation, eligibility analysis, and descriptive synthesis. The statistical methods considered the applicability of sub-group comparisons. The main limit of this approach is indubitably a decrease in the study data robustness and strength that should be considered when interpreting the findings from this review. The present study considered an observation period of only about 9 months but a more extended follow-up period is necessary to evaluate the medium- and long-term effectiveness of both techniques in over to evaluate the comparative performance of mesh regeneration compared to membrane grafts.
Our opinion is that homogeneous study methodologies are necessary to improve the robustness of meta-analyses. It is necessary for review methodologies to reduce the wide range of biases associated with several variables including the surgical technique, procedure site (single/multiple edentulism), atrophy grading, mesh characteristics (including the porosity), adaptation technique, use of stabilization screws, and biomaterial used. In fact, considering the wide range of biomaterials used and the differences in methodology, a meta-analysis was not possible.
A sufficient pool of articles for a pairwise comparison was only possible for an analysis of the VBG and coronally advanced lingual flap as statistical variables based on the methodological characteristics and RoB of the considered studies. The VBG also seemed to be similar for both clinical protocols; more histological comparisons could elucidate the graft-interface differences and the new bone formation patterns between the procedures. A drastic reduction in the exposure rates was reported for the coronally advanced lingual flap method, suggesting that it could be considered a favorable approach for decreasing the incidence of complications. No effects were reported for the vertical bone gain parameters. In addition, treating large defects with a customized titanium mesh is a useful protocol and provides a predictable result, even in the case of dehiscence. Custom, pre-formed titanium mesh together with a mixture of autologous bone and a xenograft is a feasible and reliable technique for vertical bone regeneration and advanced and three-dimensional defects [95].

5. Conclusions

Due to the weak robustness of the study data, the limitations of the present review, and the strength of the analytic findings, no definitive conclusions could be made but this topic is worthy of further investigation in the future. The research outcome seems to suggest that bone regeneration of more extensive defects using titanium meshes represents a useful bone regeneration technique, which, despite being performed with different methods using different combinations of membranes and/or bone grafts of different types, and its possible complications, was found to not compromise regenerative techniques. In the present investigation, no significant differences in bone exposure and vertical bone gain were observed when comparing the technique with membrane bone regeneration. The physical and morphological characteristics of the titanium meshes, which can also be customized to the conformation of the defect, guarantee the immobilization and stability of the defect and thus will guide the regeneration and, when present, the optimal integration of the biomaterial. The management and the surgical passivity of the flaps seems to minimize the risk of exposure, with a significant reduction in the complication incidence.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.S. and F.L.; methodology, F.L., I.A., S.A.G. and S.R.T.; software, F.L.; validation, A.S., F.L., S.A.G., S.R.T. and I.A.; formal analysis, F.L.; investigation, F.L., I.A., S.A.G. and S.R.T.; data curation, F.L., I.A., S.A.G. and S.R.T.; writing—original draft preparation, F.L.; writing—review and editing, F.L.; visualization, F.L.; supervision, F.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All experimental data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Ali, S.A.; Karthigeyan, S.; Deivanai, M.; Kumar, A. Implant Rehabilitation for Atrophic Maxilla: A Review. J. Indian Prosthodont. Soc. 2014, 14, 196–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Tumedei, M.; Mijiritsky, E.; Mourão, C.F.; Piattelli, A.; Degidi, M.; Mangano, C.; Iezzi, G. Histological and Biological Response to Different Types of Biomaterials: A Narrative Single Research Center Experience over Three Decades. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Abaza, A.W.A.A.B.; Abbas, W.M.; Khalik, D.M.A.; El Din, N.H.K. Horizontal Ridge Augmentation of the Atrophic Maxilla Using Pericardium Membrane Versus Titanium Mesh: A Clinical and Histologic Randomized Comparative Study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2023, 38, 451–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Santamaría, J.; García, A.M.; de Vicente, J.C.; Landa, S.; López-Arranz, J.S. Bone Regeneration after Radicular Cyst Removal with and without Guided Bone Regeneration. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 1998, 27, 118–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Aghazadeh, A.; Persson, R.G.; Renvert, S. Impact of Bone Defect Morphology on the Outcome of Reconstructive Treatment of Peri-Implantitis. Int. J. Implant. Dent. 2020, 6, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Atef, M.; Tarek, A.; Shaheen, M.; Alarawi, R.M.; Askar, N. Horizontal Ridge Augmentation Using Native Collagen Membrane vs Titanium Mesh in Atrophic Maxillary Ridges: Randomized Clinical Trial. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2020, 22, 156–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chavda, S.; Levin, L. Human Studies of Vertical and Horizontal Alveolar Ridge Augmentation Comparing Different Types of Bone Graft Materials: A Systematic Review. J. Oral Implantol. 2018, 44, 74–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Scarano, A.; Carinci, F.; Assenza, B.; Piattelli, M.; Murmura, G.; Piattelli, A. Vertical Ridge Augmentation of Atrophic Posterior Mandible Using an Inlay Technique with a Xenograft without Miniscrews and Miniplates: Case Series. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2011, 22, 1125–1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Iezzi, G.; Degidi, M.; Piattelli, A.; Mangano, C.; Scarano, A.; Shibli, J.A.; Perrotti, V. Comparative Histological Results of Different Biomaterials Used in Sinus Augmentation Procedures: A Human Study at 6 Months. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2012, 23, 1369–1376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. de Azambuja Carvalho, P.H.; Dos Santos Trento, G.; Moura, L.B.; Cunha, G.; Gabrielli, M.A.C.; Pereira-Filho, V.A. Horizontal Ridge Augmentation Using Xenogenous Bone Graft-Systematic Review. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2019, 23, 271–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Briguglio, F.; Falcomatà, D.; Marconcini, S.; Fiorillo, L.; Briguglio, R.; Farronato, D. The Use of Titanium Mesh in Guided Bone Regeneration: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Dent. 2019, 2019, 9065423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Graziano, A.; d’Aquino, R.; Angelis, M.G.C.-D.; De Francesco, F.; Giordano, A.; Laino, G.; Piattelli, A.; Traini, T.; De Rosa, A.; Papaccio, G. Scaffold’s Surface Geometry Significantly Affects Human Stem Cell Bone Tissue Engineering. J. Cell. Physiol. 2008, 214, 166–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lee, S.-R.; Jang, T.-S.; Seo, C.-S.; Choi, I.-O.; Lee, W.-P. Hard Tissue Volume Stability Effect beyond the Bony Envelope of a Three-Dimensional Preformed Titanium Mesh with Two Different Collagen Barrier Membranes on Peri-Implant Dehiscence Defects in the Anterior Maxilla: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Materials 2021, 14, 5618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Al-Hezaimi, K.; Iezzi, G.; Rudek, I.; Al-Daafas, A.; Al-Hamdan, K.; Al-Rasheed, A.; Javed, F.; Piattelli, A.; Wang, H.-L. Histomorphometric Analysis of Bone Regeneration Using a Dual Layer of Membranes (dPTFE Placed over Collagen) in Fresh Extraction Sites: A Canine Model. J. Oral Implant. 2015, 41, 188–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Simion, M.; Baldoni, M.; Rossi, P.; Zaffe, D. A Comparative Study of the Effectiveness of E-PTFE Membranes with and without Early Exposure during the Healing Period. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 1994, 14, 166–180. [Google Scholar]
  16. Colangelo, P.; Piattelli, A.; Barrucci, S.; Trisi, P.; Formisano, G.; Caiazza, S. Bone Regeneration Guided by Resorbable Collagen Membranes in Rabbits: A Pilot Study. Implant. Dent. 1993, 2, 101–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Ren, Y.; Fan, L.; Alkildani, S.; Liu, L.; Emmert, S.; Najman, S.; Rimashevskiy, D.; Schnettler, R.; Jung, O.; Xiong, X.; et al. Barrier Membranes for Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR): A Focus on Recent Advances in Collagen Membranes. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 14987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Higuchi, M.; Moroi, A.; Yoshizawa, K.; Kosaka, A.; Ikawa, H.; Iguchi, R.; Saida, Y.; Hotta, A.; Tsutsui, T.; Ueki, K. Comparison between Various Densities of Pore Titanium Meshes and E-Polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) Membrane Regarding Bone Regeneration Induced by Low Intensity Pulsed Ultrasound (LIPUS) in Rabbit Nasal Bone. J. Craniomaxillofac. Surg. 2016, 44, 1152–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Aerts, E.; Li, J.; Van Steenbergen, M.J.; Degrande, T.; Jansen, J.A.; Walboomers, X.F. Porous Titanium Fiber Mesh with Tailored Elasticity and Its Effect on Stromal Cells. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part B Appl. Biomater. 2020, 108, 2180–2191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Boogaard, M.J.; Santoro, F.; Romanos, G.E. Mesh Ridge Augmentation Using CAD/CAM Technology for Design and Printing: Two Case Reports. Compend. Contin. Educ. Dent. 2022, 43, 654–663. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  21. Chen, D.; Zheng, L.; Wang, C.; Huang, Y.; Huang, H.; Apicella, A.; Hu, G.; Wang, L.; Fan, Y. Evaluation of Surgical Placement Accuracy of Customized CAD/CAM Titanium Mesh Using Screws-Position-Guided Template: A Retrospective Comparative Study. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2023, 25, 519–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kurtiş, B.; Şahin, S.; Gürbüz, S.; Yurduseven, S.; Altay, C.; Kurtiş, B.; Ayyıldız, S.; Barış, E. Vertical Bone Augmentation with Customized CAD/CAM Titanium Mesh for Severe Alveolar Ridge Defect in the Posterior Mandible: A Case Letter. J. Oral Implant. 2023, 49, 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gu, C.; Xu, L.; Shi, A.; Guo, L.; Chen, H.; Qin, H. Titanium Mesh Exposure in Guided Bone Regeneration Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2022, 37, e29–e40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Boyne, P.J. The Restoration of Resected Mandibles in Children without the Use of Bone Grafts. Head Neck Surg. 1983, 6, 626–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Malchiodi, L.; Scarano, A.; Quaranta, M.; Piattelli, A. Rigid Fixation by Means of Titanium Mesh in Edentulous Ridge Expansion for Horizontal Ridge Augmentation in the Maxilla. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 1998, 13, 701–705. [Google Scholar]
  26. von Arx, T.; Kurt, B. Implant Placement and Simultaneous Peri-Implant Bone Grafting Using a Micro Titanium Mesh for Graft Stabilization. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 1998, 18, 117–127. [Google Scholar]
  27. von Arx, T.; Kurt, B. Implant Placement and Simultaneous Ridge Augmentation Using Autogenous Bone and a Micro Titanium Mesh: A Prospective Clinical Study with 20 Implants. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 1999, 10, 24–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sumi, Y.; Miyaishi, O.; Tohnai, I.; Ueda, M. Alveolar Ridge Augmentation with Titanium Mesh and Autogenous Bone. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 2000, 89, 268–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Klug, C.N.; Millesi-Schobel, G.A.; Millesi, W.; Watzinger, F.; Ewers, R. Preprosthetic Vertical Distraction Osteogenesis of the Mandible Using an L-Shaped Osteotomy and Titanium Membranes for Guided Bone Regeneration. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2001, 59, 1302–1308, discussion 1309–1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Maiorana, C.; Santoro, F.; Rabagliati, M.; Salina, S. Evaluation of the Use of Iliac Cancellous Bone and Anorganic Bovine Bone in the Reconstruction of the Atrophic Maxilla with Titanium Mesh: A Clinical and Histologic Investigation. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2001, 16, 427–432. [Google Scholar]
  31. Artzi, Z.; Dayan, D.; Alpern, Y.; Nemcovsky, C.E. Vertical Ridge Augmentation Using Xenogenic Material Supported by a Configured Titanium Mesh: Clinicohistopathologic and Histochemical Study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2003, 18, 440–446. [Google Scholar]
  32. Degidi, M.; Scarano, A.; Piattelli, A. Regeneration of the Alveolar Crest Using Titanium Micromesh with Autologous Bone and a Resorbable Membrane. J. Oral Implantol. 2003, 29, 86–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Proussaefs, P.; Lozada, J.; Kleinman, A.; Rohrer, M.D.; McMillan, P.J. The Use of Titanium Mesh in Conjunction with Autogenous Bone Graft and Inorganic Bovine Bone Mineral (Bio-Oss) for Localized Alveolar Ridge Augmentation: A Human Study. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2003, 23, 185–195. [Google Scholar]
  34. Roccuzzo, M.; Ramieri, G.; Spada, M.C.; Bianchi, S.D.; Berrone, S. Vertical Alveolar Ridge Augmentation by Means of a Titanium Mesh and Autogenous Bone Grafts. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2004, 15, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Proussaefs, P.; Lozada, J. Use of Titanium Mesh for Staged Localized Alveolar Ridge Augmentation: Clinical and Histologic-Histomorphometric Evaluation. J. Oral Implant. 2006, 32, 237–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kfir, E.; Kfir, V.; Kaluski, E. Immediate Bone Augmentation after Infected Tooth Extraction Using Titanium Membranes. J. Oral Implant. 2007, 33, 133–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Longoni, S.; Sartori, M.; Apruzzese, D.; Baldoni, M. Preliminary Clinical and Histologic Evaluation of a Bilateral 3-Dimensional Reconstruction in an Atrophic Mandible: A Case Report. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2007, 22, 478–483. [Google Scholar]
  38. Roccuzzo, M.; Ramieri, G.; Bunino, M.; Berrone, S. Autogenous Bone Graft Alone or Associated with Titanium Mesh for Vertical Alveolar Ridge Augmentation: A Controlled Clinical Trial. Clin. Oral. Implant. Res. 2007, 18, 286–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Aikawa, T.; Iida, S.; Senoo, H.; Hori, K.; Namikawa, M.; Okura, M.; Ono, T. Widening a Narrow Posterior Mandibular Alveolus Following Extirpation of a Large Cyst: A Case Treated with a Titanium Mesh-Plate Type Distractor. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 2008, 106, e1–e7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Pieri, F.; Corinaldesi, G.; Fini, M.; Aldini, N.N.; Giardino, R.; Marchetti, C. Alveolar Ridge Augmentation with Titanium Mesh and a Combination of Autogenous Bone and Anorganic Bovine Bone: A 2-Year Prospective Study. J. Periodontol. 2008, 79, 2093–2103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Corinaldesi, G.; Pieri, F.; Sapigni, L.; Marchetti, C. Evaluation of Survival and Success Rates of Dental Implants Placed at the Time of or after Alveolar Ridge Augmentation with an Autogenous Mandibular Bone Graft and Titanium Mesh: A 3 to 8-Year Retrospective Study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2009, 24, 1119–1128. [Google Scholar]
  42. Torres, J.; Tamimi, F.; Alkhraisat, M.H.; Manchón, A.; Linares, R.; Prados-Frutos, J.C.; Hernández, G.; López Cabarcos, E. Platelet-Rich Plasma May Prevent Titanium-Mesh Exposure in Alveolar Ridge Augmentation with Anorganic Bovine Bone. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2010, 37, 943–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Ciocca, L.; Fantini, M.; De Crescenzio, F.; Corinaldesi, G.; Scotti, R. Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS) of a Customized Titanium Mesh for Prosthetically Guided Bone Regeneration of Atrophic Maxillary Arches. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 2011, 49, 1347–1352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Misch, C.M. Bone Augmentation of the Atrophic Posterior Mandible for Dental Implants Using rhBMP-2 and Titanium Mesh: Clinical Technique and Early Results. Int. J. Periodontics. Restor. Dent. 2011, 31, 581–589. [Google Scholar]
  45. Cicciù, M.; Herford, A.S.; Stoffella, E.; Cervino, G.; Cicciù, D. Protein-Signaled Guided Bone Regeneration Using Titanium Mesh and Rh-BMP2 in Oral Surgery: A Case Report Involving Left Mandibular Reconstruction after Tumor Resection. Open. Dent. J. 2012, 6, 51–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Her, S.; Kang, T.; Fien, M.J. Titanium Mesh as an Alternative to a Membrane for Ridge Augmentation. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 2012, 70, 803–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Miyamoto, I.; Funaki, K.; Yamauchi, K.; Kodama, T.; Takahashi, T. Alveolar Ridge Reconstruction with Titanium Mesh and Autogenous Particulate Bone Graft: Computed Tomography-Based Evaluations of Augmented Bone Quality and Quantity. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2012, 14, 304–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Ciocca, L.; Fantini, M.; De Crescenzio, F.; Corinaldesi, G.; Scotti, R. CAD-CAM Prosthetically Guided Bone Regeneration Using Preformed Titanium Mesh for the Reconstruction of Atrophic Maxillary Arches. Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Engin. 2013, 16, 26–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Funato, A.; Ishikawa, T.; Kitajima, H.; Yamada, M.; Moroi, H. A Novel Combined Surgical Approach to Vertical Alveolar Ridge Augmentation with Titanium Mesh, Resorbable Membrane, and rhPDGF-BB: A Retrospective Consecutive Case Series. Int. J. Periodontics. Restor. Dent. 2013, 33, 437–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Atef, M.; Hakam, M.M.; ElFaramawey, M.I.; Abou-ElFetouh, A.; Ekram, M. Nongrafted Sinus Floor Elevation with a Space-Maintaining Titanium Mesh: Case-Series Study on Four Patients. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2014, 16, 893–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Butura, C.C.; Galindo, D.F. Implant Placement in Alveolar Composite Defects Regenerated with rhBMP-2, Anorganic Bovine Bone, and Titanium Mesh: A Report of Eight Reconstructed Sites. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2014, 29, e139–e146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Jung, G.-U.; Jeon, J.-Y.; Hwang, K.-G.; Park, C.-J. Preliminary Evaluation of a Three-Dimensional, Customized, and Preformed Titanium Mesh in Peri-Implant Alveolar Bone Regeneration. J. Korean Assoc. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2014, 40, 181–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Katanec, D.; Granić, M.; Majstorović, M.; Trampus, Z.; Pandurić, D.G. Use of Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein (rhBMP2) in Bilateral Alveolar Ridge Augmentation: Case Report. Coll. Antropol. 2014, 38, 325–330. [Google Scholar]
  54. Levine, R.A.; Manji, A.; Faucher, J.; Fava, P. Use of Titanium Mesh in Implant Site Development for Restorative-Driven Implant Placement: Case Report. Part 2: Surgical Protocol for Single-Tooth Esthetic Zone Sites. Compend. Contin. Educ. Dent. 2014, 35, 324; 326; 328; 330–333. [Google Scholar]
  55. Lizio, G.; Corinaldesi, G.; Marchetti, C. Alveolar Ridge Reconstruction with Titanium Mesh: A Three-Dimensional Evaluation of Factors Affecting Bone Augmentation. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2014, 29, 1354–1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Poli, P.P.; Beretta, M.; Cicciù, M.; Maiorana, C. Alveolar Ridge Augmentation with Titanium Mesh. A Retrospective Clinical Study. Open. Dent. J. 2014, 8, 148–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Vrielinck, L.; Sun, Y.; Schepers, S.; Politis, C.; Van Slycke, S.; Agbaje, J.O. Osseous Reconstruction Using an Occlusive Titanium Membrane Following Marginal Mandibulectomy: Proof of Principle. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2014, 25, 1112–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. De Angelis, N.; De Lorenzi, M.; Benedicenti, S. Surgical Combined Approach for Alveolar Ridge Augmentation with Titanium Mesh and rhPDGF-BB: A 3-Year Clinical Case Series. Int. J. Periodontics. Restor. Dent. 2015, 35, 231–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Di Stefano, D.A.; Greco, G.; Gherlone, E. A Preshaped Titanium Mesh for Guided Bone Regeneration with an Equine-Derived Bone Graft in a Posterior Mandibular Bone Defect: A Case Report. Dent. J. 2019, 7, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kim, Y.; Leem, D.H. Post Traumatic Immediate GBR: Alveolar Ridge Preservation after a Comminuted Fracture of the Anterior Maxilla. Dent. Traumatol. 2015, 31, 156–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Lee, H.-G.; Kim, Y.-D. Volumetric Stability of Autogenous Bone Graft with Mandibular Body Bone: Cone-Beam Computed Tomography and Three-Dimensional Reconstruction Analysis. J. Korean Assoc. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2015, 41, 232–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Sumida, T.; Otawa, N.; Kamata, Y.U.; Kamakura, S.; Mtsushita, T.; Kitagaki, H.; Mori, S.; Sasaki, K.; Fujibayashi, S.; Takemoto, M.; 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, 2183–2188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Misch, C.M.; Jensen, O.T.; Pikos, M.A.; Malmquist, J.P. Vertical Bone Augmentation Using Recombinant Bone Morphogenetic Protein, Mineralized Bone Allograft, and Titanium Mesh: A Retrospective Cone Beam Computed Tomography Study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2015, 30, 202–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Knöfler, W.; Barth, T.; Graul, R.; Krampe, D. Retrospective Analysis of 10,000 Implants from Insertion up to 20 Years-Analysis of Implantations Using Augmentative Procedures. Int. J. Implant. Dent. 2016, 2, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zita Gomes, R.; Paraud Freixas, A.; Han, C.-H.; Bechara, S.; Tawil, I. Alveolar Ridge Reconstruction with Titanium Meshes and Simultaneous Implant Placement: A Retrospective, Multicenter Clinical Study. Biomed. Res. Int. 2016, 2016, 5126838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Ahmed, M.; Abu Shama, A.; Hamdy, R.M.; Ezz, M. Bioresorbable versus Titanium Space-Maintaining Mesh in Maxillary Sinus Floor Elevation: A Split-Mouth Study. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 2017, 46, 1178–1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Cucchi, A.; Vignudelli, E.; Napolitano, A.; Marchetti, C.; Corinaldesi, G. 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, 821–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Jegham, H.; Masmoudi, R.; Ouertani, H.; Blouza, I.; Turki, S.; Khattech, M.B. Ridge Augmentation with Titanium Mesh: A Case Report. J. Stomatol. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2017, 118, 181–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Scarano, A. Delayed Expansion of Atrophic Mandible (Deam): A Case Report. ORL 2017, 10, 190–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Alagl, A.S.; Madi, M. Localized Ridge Augmentation in the Anterior Maxilla Using Titanium Mesh, an Alloplast, and a Nano-Bone Graft: A Case Report. J. Int. Med. Res. 2018, 46, 2001–2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ciocca, L.; Lizio, G.; Baldissara, P.; Sambuco, A.; Scotti, R.; Corinaldesi, G. Prosthetically CAD-CAM-Guided Bone Augmentation of Atrophic Jaws Using Customized Titanium Mesh: Preliminary Results of an Open Prospective Study. J. Oral Implant. 2018, 44, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Inoue, K.; Nakajima, Y.; Omori, M.; Suwa, Y.; Kato-Kogoe, N.; Yamamoto, K.; Kitagaki, H.; Mori, S.; Nakano, H.; Ueno, T. Reconstruction of the Alveolar Bone Using Bone Augmentation with Selective Laser Melting Titanium Mesh Sheet: A Report of 2 Cases. Implant. Dent. 2018, 27, 602–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Lorenz, J.; Al-Maawi, S.; Sader, R.; Ghanaati, S. Individualized Titanium Mesh Combined with Platelet-Rich Fibrin and Deproteinized Bovine Bone: A New Approach for Challenging Augmentation. J. Oral. Implant. 2018, 44, 345–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Zhou, M.; Li, S.-Y.; Terheyden, H.; Cao, S.-S.; Che, Y.-J.; Geng, Y.-M. Particulate Coral Hydroxyapatite Sheltered by Titanium Mesh for Localized Alveolar Rehabilitation After Onlay Graft Failure: A Case Report. J. Oral. Implant. 2018, 44, 147–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Cucchi, A.; Giavatto, M.A.; Giannatiempo, J.; Lizio, G.; Corinaldesi, G. Custom-Made Titanium Mesh for Maxillary Bone Augmentation with Immediate Implants and Delayed Loading. J. Oral. Implant. 2019, 45, 59–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Hartmann, A.; Hildebrandt, H.; Schmohl, J.U.; Kämmerer, P.W. Evaluation of Risk Parameters in Bone Regeneration Using a Customized Titanium Mesh: Results of a Clinical Study. Implant. Dent. 2019, 28, 543–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Mounir, M.; Shalash, M.; Mounir, S.; Nassar, Y.; El Khatib, O. 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, 960–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Tallarico, M.; Ceruso, F.M.; Muzzi, L.; Meloni, S.M.; Kim, Y.-J.; Gargari, M.; Martinolli, M. Effect of Simultaneous Immediate Implant Placement and Guided Bone Reconstruction with Ultra-Fine Titanium Mesh Membranes on Radiographic and Clinical Parameters after 18 Months of Loading. Materials 2019, 12, 1710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. 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, 862–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Hartmann, A.; Seiler, M. Minimizing Risk of Customized Titanium Mesh Exposures—A Retrospective Analysis. BMC Oral Health 2020, 20, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Maiorana, C.; Manfredini, M.; Beretta, M.; Signorino, F.; Bovio, A.; Poli, P.P. Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Simultaneous Alveolar Ridge Augmentation by Means of Preformed Titanium Meshes at Dehiscence-Type Peri-Implant Defects: A Prospective Pilot Study. Materials 2020, 13, 2389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Malik, R.; Gupta, A.; Bansal, P.; Sharma, R.; Sharma, S. Evaluation of Alveolar Ridge Height Gained by Vertical Ridge Augmentation Using Titanium Mesh and Novabone Putty in Posterior Mandible. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 2020, 19, 32–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Tallarico, M.; Park, C.-J.; Lumbau, A.I.; Annucci, M.; Baldoni, E.; Koshovari, A.; Meloni, S.M. Customized 3D-Printed Titanium Mesh Developed to Regenerate a Complex Bone Defect in the Aesthetic Zone: A Case Report Approached with a Fully Digital Workflow. Materials 2020, 13, 3874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Li, L.; Wang, C.; Li, X.; Fu, G.; Chen, D.; Huang, Y. 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, 5–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Chiapasco, M.; Casentini, P.; Tommasato, G.; Dellavia, C.; Del Fabbro, M. 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 Implant. Res. 2021, 32, 498–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Cucchi, A.; Vignudelli, E.; Sartori, M.; Parrilli, A.; Aldini, N.N.; Corinaldesi, G. A Microcomputed Tomography Analysis of Bone Tissue after Vertical Ridge Augmentation with Non-Resorbable Membranes versus Resorbable Membranes and Titanium Mesh in Humans. Int. J. Oral Implant. 2021, 14, 25–38. [Google Scholar]
  87. Cucchi, A.; Vignudelli, E.; Franceschi, D.; Randellini, E.; Lizio, G.; Fiorino, A.; Corinaldesi, G. Vertical and Horizontal Ridge Augmentation Using Customized CAD/CAM Titanium Mesh with versus without Resorbable Membranes. A Randomized Clinical Trial. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2021, 32, 1411–1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. De Santis, D.; Gelpi, F.; Verlato, G.; Luciano, U.; Torroni, L.; Antonucci, N.; Bernardello, F.; Zarantonello, M.; Nocini, P.F. Digital Customized Titanium Mesh for Bone Regeneration of Vertical, Horizontal and Combined Defects: A Case Series. Medicina 2021, 57, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Dellavia, C.; Canciani, E.; Pellegrini, G.; Tommasato, G.; Graziano, D.; Chiapasco, M. Histological Assessment of Mandibular Bone Tissue after Guided Bone Regeneration with Customized Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Assisted Manufacture Titanium Mesh in Humans: A Cohort Study. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2021, 23, 600–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Kadkhodazadeh, M.; Amid, R.; Moscowchi, A. Management of Extensive Peri-Implant Defects with Titanium Meshes. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2021, 25, 561–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Li, S.; Zhao, J.; Xie, Y.; Tian, T.; Zhang, T.; Cai, X. Hard Tissue Stability after Guided Bone Regeneration: A Comparison between Digital Titanium Mesh and Resorbable Membrane. Int. J. Oral. Sci. 2021, 13, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Maiorana, C.; Fontana, F.; Dal Polo, M.R.; Pieroni, S.; Ferrantino, L.; Poli, P.P.; Simion, M. Dense Polytetrafluoroethylene Membrane versus Titanium Mesh in Vertical Ridge Augmentation: Clinical and Histological Results of a Split-Mouth Prospective Study. J. Contemp. Dent. Pract. 2021, 22, 465–472. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  93. Wang, X.; Wang, G.; Zhao, X.; Feng, Y.; Liu, H.; Li, F. Short-Term Evaluation of Guided Bone Reconstruction with Titanium Mesh Membranes and CGF Membranes in Immediate Implantation of Anterior Maxillary Tooth. Biomed. Res. Int. 2021, 2021, 4754078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Yoon, J.-H.; Park, Y.-W.; Kim, S.-G. Titanium Mesh and Pedicled Buccal Fat Pad for the Reconstruction of Maxillary Defect: Case Report. Maxillofac. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2021, 43, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Bertran Faus, A.; Cordero Bayo, J.; Velasco-Ortega, E.; Torrejon-Moya, A.; Fernández-Velilla, F.; García, F.; López-López, J. Customized Titanium Mesh for Guided Bone Regeneration with Autologous Bone and Xenograft. Materials 2022, 15, 6271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Del Barrio, R.A.L.; de Souza, E.R.; Al Houch, A.O.; Marão, H.F. Rehabilitation of Severely Atrophic Mandible: A 3-Year Follow-Up Protocol. J. Oral. Implant. 2022, 48, 475–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Gelețu, G.L.; Burlacu, A.; Murariu, A.; Andrian, S.; Golovcencu, L.; Baciu, E.-R.; Maftei, G.; Onica, N. Customized 3D-Printed Titanium Mesh Developed for an Aesthetic Zone to Regenerate a Complex Bone Defect Resulting after a Deficient Odontectomy: A Case Report. Medicina 2022, 58, 1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Hartmann, A.; Hildebrandt, H.; Younan, Z.; Al-Nawas, B.; Kämmerer, P.W. Long-Term Results in Three-Dimensional, Complex Bone Augmentation Procedures with Customized Titanium Meshes. Clin. Oral. Implant. Res. 2022, 33, 1171–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Levine, R.A.; Lai, P.-C.; Manji, A.; Bruce, J.; Katwal, D.; Chen, P.-H.A.; Faucher, J.; McAllister, B.S.; Fava, P.; Scarfe, W.C. Implant Site Development Using Titanium Mesh in the Maxilla: A Retrospective Study of 58 Mesh Procedures in 48 Patients. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2022, 42, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Lim, J.; Jun, S.H.; Tallarico, M.; Park, J.-B.; Park, D.-H.; Hwang, K.-G.; Park, C.-J. A Randomized Controlled Trial of Guided Bone Regeneration for Peri-Implant Dehiscence Defects with Two Anorganic Bovine Bone Materials Covered by Titanium Meshes. Materials 2022, 15, 5294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Majewski, P. The Ti-Mesh Technique: Guided Bone Regeneration for Three-Dimensional Augmentations. Clinical Aspects: A Case Series. Int. J. Periodontics. Restor. Dent. 2022, 42, 145–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Müller, J.; Junker, R. Customized Titanium Mesh for Guided Bone Regeneration in the Posterior Mandible in a Patient Previously Treated with Bisphosphonates. Case. Rep. Dent. 2022, 2022, 5174075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Poomprakobsri, K.; Kan, J.Y.; Rungcharassaeng, K.; Lozada, J.; Oyoyo, U. Exposure of Barriers Used in Guided Bone Regeneration: Rate, Timing, Management, and Effect on Grafted Bone-A Retrospective Analysis. J. Oral Implant. 2022, 48, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Yang, W.; Chen, D.; Wang, C.; Apicella, D.; Apicella, A.; Huang, Y.; Li, L.; Zheng, L.; Ji, P.; Wang, L.; et al. The Effect of Bone Defect Size on the 3D Accuracy of Alveolar Bone Augmentation Performed with Additively Manufactured Patient-Specific Titanium Mesh. BMC Oral Health 2022, 22, 557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Attia, R.; El-Nahass, H.; Anis, M.; Hosny, M. Clinical Evaluation of Coronally Advanced Lingual Flap for Maintaining Primary Wound Closure over Titanium Mesh after Guided Bone Regeneration: A Randomized Control Trial. Int. J. Periodontics. Restor. Dent. 2023, 43, s36–s52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Bahaa, S.; Diab, N.; Zazou, N.; Darhous, M.; El Arab, A.E.; ElNahass, H. Evaluation of Bone Gain in Horizontal Ridge Augmentation Using Titanium Mesh in Combination with Different Flap Advancement Techniques: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2023, 52, 379–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Nan, X.; Wang, C.; Li, L.; Ma, X.; Chen, T.; Huang, Y. Application of Three-Dimensional Printing Individualized Titanium Mesh in Alveolar Bone Defects with Different Terheyden Classifications: A Retrospective Case Series Study. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2023, 34, 639–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Onică, N.; Onică, C.A.; Baciu, E.-R.; Vasluianu, R.-I.; Ciofu, M.; Balan, M.; Gelețu, G.L. Advanced Techniques for Bone Restoration and Immediate Loading after Implant Failure: A Case Report. Healthcare 2023, 11, 1608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Li, S.; Zhao, Y.; Tian, T.; Zhang, T.; Xie, Y.; Cai, X. A Minimally Invasive Method for Titanium Mesh Fixation with Resorbable Sutures in Guided Bone Regeneration: A Retrospective Study. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2023, 25, 87–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Wen, S.-C.; Fu, J.-H.; Wang, H.-L. Effect of Deproteinized Bovine Bone Mineral at Implant Dehiscence Defects Grafted by the Sandwich Bone Augmentation Technique. Int. J. Periodontics. Restor. Dent. 2018, 38, 79–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Zhang, G.; Miao, X.; Lin, H.; Qi, B.; Wu, Y. A Tooth-Supported Titanium Mesh Bending and Positioning Module for Alveolar Bone Augmentation and Improving Accuracy. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2023, 35, 586–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Poli, P.P.; Beretta, M.; Maiorana, C.; Souza, F.Á.; Bovio, A.; Manfredini, M. Therapeutic Strategies in the Management of Nonresorbable Membrane and Titanium Mesh Exposures Following Alveolar Bone Augmentation: A Systematic Scoping Review. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2022, 37, 250–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Boyne, P.J. Restoration of Osseous Defects in Maxillofacial Casualties. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 1969, 78, 767–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Aceves-Argemí, R.; Roca-Millan, E.; González-Navarro, B.; Marí-Roig, A.; Velasco-Ortega, E.; López-López, J. Titanium Meshes in Guided Bone Regeneration: A Systematic Review. Coatings 2021, 11, 316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Rasia-dal Polo, M.; Poli, P.-P.; Rancitelli, D.; Beretta, M.; Maiorana, C. Alveolar Ridge Reconstruction with Titanium Meshes: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Med. Oral Patol. Oral Cir. Bucal. 2014, 19, e639–e646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Implementation of Virtual Reality in Preclinical Pediatric Dentistry Learning: A Comparison Between Simodont® and Conventional Methods
Previous
Novel Esthetic Technique for Restoring Dental Implant Access Holes: A Case Report
Next