TABLE 1.
Summary of clinical studies with customized mesh for GBR.
| Category | Reference | Method for making mesh | No. of patients | No.of graft sites | Thickness | Pore size | Roughness | Cover materials | Complication | Bone augmentationoutcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Titanium mesh | Ciocca et al. (2011) | Type 2 | 1 | 1 | 0.6 mm | Square 1.0 mm holes | NA | None | NA | AHB: 3.41 ± 0.89 mm; AVB: 2.57 ± 0.86 mm |
| Sumida et al. (2015) | Type 2 | 13 | 13 | 0.3 mm | Round 1.0 mm hole | Mirror polished | None | Mucosal rupture: 7.7% | NA | |
| Sagheb et al. (2017) | Type 2 | 17 | 21 | NA | NA | NA | 6 cases with a resorbable collagen membrane | Mesh exposure: 33.3% | AHB: 5.50 ± 1.90 mm | |
| 13 cases with a double layer of collagen membrane and platelet-rich fibrin membranes | AVB: 6.50 ± 1.70 mm | |||||||||
| Ciocca et al. (2018) | Type 2 | 9 | 9 | 0.1 mm | Round 1.0-mm hole | NA | None | Mesh exposure: 66.7% | MAB: 1.72–4.10 mm (mean: 3.83 mm) | |
| MB: 2.14–6.88 mm (mean: 3.95 mm) | ||||||||||
| Al-Ardah et al. (2018) | Type 1 | 1 | 1 | NA | NA | NA | Platelet-rich fibrin membranes | NA | NA | |
| Cucchi et al. (2019a) | Type 2 | 1 | 1 | NA | NA | NA | Plasma rich in growth factors membranes | NA | NA | |
| El Chaar et al. (2019) | Type 1* | 17 | 17 | NA | NA | NA | None | Mesh exposure: 35.3% | AHB: 5.94 mm | |
| Mesh failure: 11.8% | AVB: 6.99 mm | |||||||||
| Ghanaati et al. (2019) | Type 2 | 7 | NA | NA | NA | NA | Platelet-rich fibrin membranes | No signs of complications were observed in exposed open healing model | NA | |
| Takano et al. (2019) | Type 2 | 1 | 1 | 0.6 mm | NA | NA | None | NA | NA | |
| Hartmann et al. (2019) | Type 2 | 65 | 70 | NA | NA | NA | Advanced- and injectable-platelet-rich fibrin and a collagen membrane | Mesh exposure: 37.1% | NA | |
| Hartmann and Seiler, (2020) | Type 2 | 55 | 68 | NA | NA | NA | 12 cases with advanced-platelet rich fibrin; 56 cases with a collagen membrane | Mesh exposure: 25.0% | Misch’s classification:D1 (17.6%), D2 (52.9%), D3 (19.1%) and D4 (10.3%) | |
| Cucchi et al. (2020) | Type 2 | 10 | 10 | <0.5 mm | NA | NA | None | Mesh exposure: 10.0% | AVB: 4.5 ± 1.8 mm | |
| Tallarico et al. (2020) | Type 2 | 1 | 1 | NA | NA | NA | None | NA | NA | |
| Hofferber et al. (2020) | Type 2 | 9 | 9 | 0.5 mm | NA | NA | Collagen membrane | Mesh exposure: 44.4% | AHB: 3.02 ± 0.84 mmAVB: 2.86 ± 1.09 mm | |
| Li et al. (2021b) | Type 1 | 21 | 22 | NA | NA | NA | None | Mesh exposure: 9.1% | AHB: 4.11 mm (1.19–8.74)AVB: 2.48 mm (0.29–6.32) | |
| Li et al. (2021a) | Type 2 | 16 | 16 | 0.2 mm | Uniform apertures of 2.0 mm diameter | NA | Collagen membrane and concentrated growth factor matrix | Mesh exposure: 18.8%Wound dehiscence without mesh exposure: 6.3% | AHB:4.06 ± 2.37, 5.58 ± 2.65, and 5.26 ± 2.33 mm at levels of 0, 2, and 4 mm below the implant platform AVB: 3.55 ± 3.74 mm |
|
| De Santis et al. (2021) | Type 2 | 5 | 12 | NA | NA | NA | Collagen membrane | Mesh exposure: 8.3% | AHB: 3.60 ± 0.80 mmAVB: 5.20 ± 1.10 mm | |
| Chiapasco et al. (2021) | Type 2 | 41 | 53 | NA | NA | NA | Collagen membrane | Mesh exposure: 20.8% | AHB: 6.35 ± 2.10 mmAVB: 4.78 ± 1.88 mm | |
| Nickenig et al. (2022) | Type 2 | 3 | 7 | NA | NA | NA | Collagen membrane | No mesh exposure was observed | AHB: 3.70 mm (SD ± 0.59) | |
| Lizio et al. (2022) | Type 2 | 17 | 19 | 0.1–0.5 mm | NA | NA | None | Mesh exposure: 52.3%Mesh failure: 26.3% | Three-dimensional bone gain percentage: 88.2 ± 8.32% in 74% of the cases | |
| PEEK mesh | Mounir et al. (2019) | Type 2 | 16 | NA | 2 mm | NA | NA | Collagen membrane | Mesh exposure: 1 case | Three-dimensional bone gain percentage:31.8 ± 22.7% |
| El Morsy et al. (2020) | Type 2 | 14 | NA | NA | NA | NA | None | Mesh exposure: 1 case | AHB: 3.42 ± 1.10 mmAVB: 3.47 ± 1.46 mm | |
| uHA/PLLA mesh | Matsuo et al. (2010) | Type 1 | 2 | 2 | 0.8 mm | NA | NA | None | NA | Hounsfield unit value in new bone area was 790 |
Type 1, bend a commercial mesh on a 3D printed planned augmented alveolar bone model.
Type 1*, use wax to raise a preoperative alveolar bone model before bending the mesh.
Type 2, design the containment mesh directly on the virtually planned model and prototype it.
AVB, average vertical bone gain; AHB, average horizontal bone gain.
MAB, mandibular arch bone gain; MB, maxillary bone gain.
NA, not available.