Purpose: To compare the clinical effectiveness of three different devices used in guided bone regeneration procedures for partially atrophic arches.
Materials and methods: A randomised controlled trial with three parallel arms was conducted. The study evaluated titanium-reinforced polytetrafluoroethylene membrane (PTFE group), semi-occlusive CAD/CAM titanium mesh (mesh group) and occlusive CAD/CAM titanium foil (foil group) in terms of surgical outcomes and complications as well as surgical times and surgeon satisfaction in 27 guided bone regeneration procedures, presenting results from 1 year post-implant placement.
Results: Complications occurred in seven patients. No significant difference was found between the groups in terms of the occurrence of complications (P = 0.51), device exposure (P = 0.12) and implant failure (P = 0.650). Surgeon satisfaction varied significantly, with the PTFE group differing from the mesh (P = 0.003) and foil groups (P 0.001), but not between meshes and foils (P = 0.172). Surgical times also differed significantly, with longer times for PTFE membranes compared to meshes (P 0.001) and foils (P = 0.006), but with no difference between meshes and foils (P = 0.308). The mean reconstructed bone volume was 1269.55 ± 561.08 mm3, with no significant difference observed between the three groups (P = 0.815). There was also no significant difference for mean maximum height (6.72 mm, P = 0.867) and width (7.69 mm, P = 0.998). The mean marginal bone loss at 1 year after implant placement was 0.59 ± 0.27 mm.
Conclusions: Although this study provides valuable insights into the potential benefits of using different types of CAD/CAM devices, further research with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods is warranted to validate these findings.
Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest relating to this study.
Keywords: CAD/CAM; dental implants; foil; guided bone regeneration; mesh.