Dense Polytetrafluoroethylene Membrane versus Titanium Mesh in Vertical Ridge Augmentation: Clinical and Histological Results of a Split-mouth Prospective Study

Histological and histomorphometric analysis of bone tissue using customized titanium meshes with or without resorbable membranes: A randomized clinical trial

“…The significantly higher rate of bone tissue and lower rate of non-mineralized tissue in the mandible than in the maxilla may influence the clinical practice in bone regeneration. Maiorana et al (2021) comparing Ti-PTFE membranes to conventional Ti-meshes without membranes, described mean values of TA B L E 1 Histomorphometric values divided up by intervention group. (DBBM) as a graft material.…”

“…Maiorana et al. (2021) comparing Ti‐PTFE membranes to conventional Ti‐meshes without membranes, described mean values of 36%, 12%, and 52%, respectively, for the latter group. In that study, the authors used xenograft as bone‐grafting material and delayed implant placement until after 8 months of healing.…”

Techniques on vertical ridge augmentation: Indications and effectiveness

“…In another study by the same research group, expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membranes combined with simultaneous implant placement were able to regenerate 2.94 ± 1.15 mm (89.3 ± 64.2%), 3.27 ± 0.88 mm (130 ± 40.7%), and 3.95 ± 1.79 mm (116 ± 51%) of the defect when they were used without graft, in combination with demineralized freeze‐dried bone allograft, or in combination with autologous graft, respectively 26 . Furthermore, nonresorbable membranes were used in combination with alloplastic materials, 42 xenografts, 43,44 allografts, 26,41,45,46 autologous grafts, 23,26,41,45–48 and combinations thereof 38,45,49–56 yielding similar results with percentage bone gain ranging between 62% and 139%. Regarding the time of implant placement, both simultaneous 23,26,38,41,42,44,45,48,52 and staged approaches 23,41,43,45–47,49–56 were shown to be effective in yielding vertical regeneration.…”

“…nerve is exposed should not be treated with bone grafts placed directly on the exposed nerve, including guided bone regeneration. xenografts, 43,44 allografts, 26,41,45,46 autologous grafts, 23,26,41,[45][46][47][48] and combinations thereof 38,45,[49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56] yielding similar results with percentage bone gain ranging between 62% and 139%. Regarding the time of implant placement, both simultaneous 23,26,38,41,42,44,45,48,52 and staged approaches 23,41,43,[45][46][47][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56] were shown to be effective in yielding vertical regeneration.…”

“…xenografts, 43,44 allografts, 26,41,45,46 autologous grafts, 23,26,41,[45][46][47][48] and combinations thereof 38,45,[49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56] yielding similar results with percentage bone gain ranging between 62% and 139%. Regarding the time of implant placement, both simultaneous 23,26,38,41,42,44,45,48,52 and staged approaches 23,41,43,[45][46][47][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56] were shown to be effective in yielding vertical regeneration. However, a recent study of Urban et al 54 demonstrated that when using polytetrafluoroethylene membranes there is an increased probability of incomplete bone regeneration by 2.5 times for each millimeter of regeneration needed; hence, a simultaneous approach in a deep defect might result in an increased risk of implant deh...…”