Titanium Meshes in Guided Bone Regeneration: A Systematic Review
The presence of satisfactory bone volume is fundamental for the achievement of osseointegration. This systematic review aims to analyse the use of titanium meshes in guided bone regeneration in terms of bone gain, survival and success rates of implants, and percentages of exposure. An electronic sea...
| Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | article |
| Status: | Published version |
| Publication Date: | 2021 |
| Country: | España |
| Institution: | Varias* (Consorci de Biblioteques Universitáries de Catalunya, Centre de Serveis Científics i Acadèmics de Catalunya) |
| Repository: | Recercat. Dipósit de la Recerca de Catalunya |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:recercat.cat:2445/176003 |
| Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/2445/176003 |
| Access Level: | Open access |
| Keyword: | Medicina regenerativa Implants artificials Regenerative medicine Artificial implants |
| Summary: | The presence of satisfactory bone volume is fundamental for the achievement of osseointegration. This systematic review aims to analyse the use of titanium meshes in guided bone regeneration in terms of bone gain, survival and success rates of implants, and percentages of exposure. An electronic search was conducted Articles were selected from databases in MEDLINE (PubMed), SCOPUS, Scielo, and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies in which bone regeneration was performed through particulate bone and the use of titanium meshes. Twenty-one studies were included in the review. In total, 382 patients, 416 titanium meshes, and 709 implants were evaluated. The average bone gain was 4.3 mm in horizontal width and 4.11 mm in vertical height. The mesh exposure was highly prevalent (28%). The survival rate of 145 simultaneous implants was 99.5%; the survival rate of 507 delayed implants was 99%. The success rate of 105 simultaneous implants was 97%; the success rate of 285 delayed implants was 95.1%. The clinical studies currently available in the literature have shown the predictability of this technique. It has a high risk of soft tissue dehiscence and membrane exposure although the optimal management of membrane exposition permits obtaining a sufficient bone regeneration volume and prevents compromising the final treatment outcome. |
|---|