Using Virtual Ridge Augmentation and 3-Dimensional Printing to Fabricate a Titanium Mesh Positioning Device: A Novel Technique Letter

Al-Ardah, Aladdin J.; Alqahtani, Nasser M.; AlHelal, Abdulaziz; Goodacre, Brian J.; Swamidass, Rajesh S.; Garbacea, Antoanela; Lozada, Jaime

doi:10.1563/aaid-joi-d-17-00160

Cited by 13 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nowadays, the use of digital technology is changing the application of conventional bone augmentation procedures. Various digital bone augmentation techniques, such as pre‐bent titanium mesh, 3D‐printing or CAD‐CAM‐produced titanium mesh, and customized bone block, could help in virtually designing the augmented hard tissue based on the future prosthetic outcome, achieve a more precise ridge augmentation, and significantly reduce the surgical time (Sagheb et al, 2017; Al‐Ardah et al, 2018; Blume et al, 2018; Ciocca et al, 2018; Li et al, 2021). While the experience and surgical skills of the dentist can also assist to implement successful ridge augmentation, the decrease in the surgical time was a prominent advantage associated with digital bone augmentation techniques.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical and radiographic outcomes of customized allogeneic bone block versus autogenous bone block for ridge augmentation: 6 Month results of a randomized controlled clinical trial

Wang

et al. 2022

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To evaluate the efficacy of customized allogeneic bone block (CABB) for ridge augmentation compared with autogenous bone block. Materials and Methods Patients (N = 24) in need of ridge augmentation were randomly assigned to one of two treatment modalities: CABBs (CABB group) and autogenous bone blocks (ABB group). The primary outcome of the present study was the horizontal bone gain at 1 mm below the alveolar ridge crest (HBG1). Secondary outcomes were the bone gain at other levels, bone resorption rate, ridge width, operative time, postoperative pain score, and histological results. The data obtained from the current study were analysed using a generalized linear mixed effects model, two‐sample t‐test, or a Mann–Whitney U‐test. Results Twenty‐four patients completed a 6‐month follow‐up. One patient in the CABB group exhibited block exposure. The CABB group had significantly more horizontal bone gain (HBG1) and less horizontal bone resorption (HBRR1) at 1 mm below the alveolar ridge crest when compared with those in the ABB group (HBG1: CABB group [4.29 ± 1.48 mm] and ABB group [1.12 ± 3.25 mm]; HBRR0: CABB group [42.15 ± 14.03%] and ABB group [92.52 ± 55.78%], p < .05). In addition, a longer operative time was reported in the ABB group compared with the CABB group (p < .05). The histological observation indicated a new bone formation in both groups. Conclusions The use of CABBs resulted in more horizontal bone gain and less horizontal bone resorption at 1 mm below the alveolar ridge crest at 6 months post‐surgery compared with ABBs while reducing the operative time in the treatment of ridge augmentation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical and radiographic outcomes of customized allogeneic bone block versus autogenous bone block for ridge augmentation: 6 Month results of a randomized controlled clinical trial

Wang

et al. 2022

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Through a comprehensive preoperative assessment of the patient in cross-sectional imaging and digitalized research models, the ideal reconstructed alveolar ridge can be designed virtually according to arch form and expected implant position in computer-aided design (CAD) software. 80 So far, two kinds of production methods of personalized titanium mesh have been developed: one of which is to directly design a matching custom-made titanium mesh on the planned reconstructed alveolar ridge model, and use CAD/computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) technology to print the titanium mesh through a 3D printing process. 68,81,82 Another method is to preform the titanium mesh preoperatively on the 3D-printed planned reconstructed alveolar ridge model, and it can also form a personalized titanium mesh according to design requirements.…”

Section: Progress In Digitizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Titanium mesh for bone augmentation in oral implantology: current application and progress

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Guided bone regeneration (GBR) is an effective and simple method for bone augmentation, which is often used to reconstruct the alveolar ridge when the bone defect occurs in the implant area. Titanium mesh has expanded the indications of GBR technology due to its excellent mechanical properties and biocompatibility, so that the GBR technology can be used to repair alveolar ridges with larger bone defects, and can obtain excellent and stable bone augmentation results. Currently, GBR with titanium mesh has various clinical applications, including different clinical procedures. Bone graft materials, titanium mesh covering methods, and titanium mesh fixing methods are also optional. Moreover, the research of GBR with titanium mesh has led to multifarious progresses in digitalization and material modification. This article reviews the properties of titanium mesh and the difference of titanium mesh with other barrier membranes; the current clinical application of titanium mesh in bone augmentation; common complications and management and prevention methods in the application of titanium mesh; and research progress of titanium mesh in digitization and material modification. Hoping to provide a reference for further improvement of titanium mesh in clinical application and related research of titanium mesh.

show abstract

“…At present, many scholars focused their attention on 3D‐printed titanium mesh and CAD/CAM printed bone block materials. These digital technologies could assist in achieving a more controllable bone augmentation program 30‐37 . However, the plasticity of 3D‐printed titanium mesh was poor, and the complication of titanium mesh exposure was a difficult problem to fix.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A novel digital and visualized guided bone regeneration procedure and digital precise bone augmentation: A case series

Zhou

Zhang

et al. 2020

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Although the traditional bone augmentation technology can basically meet the clinical needs at present, the effect of bone augmentation in most cases is related to the experience of the operator. Propose This study commits to providing a digital solution for precise bone augmentation in the field of oral implantology. Materials and methods After collecting the data of patients' intraoral scanning and DICOM (digital imaging and communications in medicine), the implant position is digitally designed, and the alveolar bone is digitally augmented around the ideal implant position. On the premise of ensuring that the thickness of labial bone is 2 mm, and there is sufficient alveolar bone 3 to 4 mm apically from the ideal gingival margin for implant placing, we carry out excessive augmentation of 0.5 and 1 mm on the labial bone and alveolar crest, respectively, to compensate for possible bone resorption after 6 months. After 3D printing the reconstructed alveolar bone model, the titanium mesh is trimmed and preformed on the alveolar bone model. Outcomes are reported in terms of mean values (5%‐95% percentile values). Results Thirty implant sites have accepted this novel virtually designed alveolar bone augmentation. Before the second‐stage surgery, the average vertical bone gain was 2.48 mm (0.29‐6.32), the average horizontal bone gain was 4.11 mm (1.19‐8.74), the average height of the residual alveolar bone above the implant platform was 1.44 mm (0.59‐2.92), the average thickness of the labial bone width at the implant platform was 2.00 mm (0.93‐3.64), the average thickness of the labial bone width at 2 mm apically from the implant platform was 2.74 mm (1.40‐5.46). The virtual augmentation of each tooth position was 349.41 mm3 (165.70‐482.70), while the actual augmentation of each tooth position was 352.94 mm3 (159.24‐501.78), the accuracy of the final actual augmentation reached 95.82% (range from 88.53% to 99.15%). Conclusion This case series suggests that a virtually digital guided bone regeneration (GBR) workflow is precise and controllable. The practicality, safety and effectiveness of this procedure needs to be compared to other bone augmentation procedures in randomized controlled trials.

show abstract

Using Virtual Ridge Augmentation and 3-Dimensional Printing to Fabricate a Titanium Mesh Positioning Device: A Novel Technique Letter

Cited by 13 publications

References 27 publications

Clinical and radiographic outcomes of customized allogeneic bone block versus autogenous bone block for ridge augmentation: 6 Month results of a randomized controlled clinical trial

Clinical and radiographic outcomes of customized allogeneic bone block versus autogenous bone block for ridge augmentation: 6 Month results of a randomized controlled clinical trial

Titanium mesh for bone augmentation in oral implantology: current application and progress

A novel digital and visualized guided bone regeneration procedure and digital precise bone augmentation: A case series

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About