Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39180274›Full record

Trial reportClinical oral implants research2024

Complication, vertical bone gain, volumetric changes after vertical ridge augmentation using customized reinforced PTFE mesh or Ti-mesh. A non-inferiority randomized clinical trial.

Alessandro Cucchi, Sofia Bettini, Lucia Tedeschi, Istvan Urban, Debora Franceschi, Antonino Fiorino, Giuseppe Corinaldesi

Abstract readEquivalence TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical oral implants research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Alessandro CucchiPrivate Practice, Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-5155-2807
Sofia BettiniImplant Center for Edentulism and Jawbone Atrophies, Maxillofacial Surgery and Odontostomatology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Lucia TedeschiPrivate Practice, Bologna, Italy.
Istvan UrbanDepartment of Periodontology and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Debora FranceschiDepartment of Experimental and Clinic Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9575-749X
Antonino FiorinoDepartment of Neuroscience and Reproductive and Odontostomatological Sciences, 'Federico II' University of Naples, Naples, Italy.
Giuseppe CorinaldesiDepartment of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences (DIBINEM), University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this non-inferiority randomized clinical trial was to compare the surgical and healing complications, vertical bone gain, and volumetric bone changes after vertical ridge augmentation using two different approaches: customized Ti-reinforced d-PTFE mesh versus customized CAD/CAM Ti-mesh. MATERIALS AND

methodsFifty patients with vertical bone defects were randomly treated with Ti-reinforced d-PTFE mesh (control group) or CAD/CAM Ti-mesh (test group) and a mix of autogenous bone and deproteinized bovine bone matrix. Surgical and healing complication rates (SCR-HCR), vertical bone gain (VBG), regenerated bone volume (RBV), and regeneration rates (RR and ERR) were recorded and analysed [significance level (α) of 0.05].

resultsOf the 50 patients, 48 underwent bone augmentation surgery. SCR were 4% and 12% in PTFE and Ti-mesh, whereas HCR were 12.5% and 8.3%. VBG were 5.79 ± 1.71 mm (range: 3.2-8.8 mm) in the PTFE group and 5.18 ± 1.61 mm (range: 3.1-8.0 mm) in the Ti-mesh group (p = .233), whereas RBV were 1.46 ± 0.48 cc and 1.26 ± 0.55. RR was 99.5% and 87.0%, demonstrating a statistically significant difference (p = .013). Finally, the values related to pseudo-periosteum, bone density, and implant stability were similar in the two study groups. Osseointegration rates were 98.2% and 98.3%.

conclusionsThis study confirmed the non-inferiority of customized CAD/CAM titanium meshes with respect to reinforced PTFE meshes in terms of surgical and healing complications. Although PTFE meshes showed higher vertical bone gain and regeneration rates than Ti-meshes, no significant differences were found.

Indexed as

Alveolar Ridge AugmentationPolytetrafluoroethyleneSurgical MeshTitaniumAdultAgedBone RegenerationBone TransplantationComputer-Aided DesignFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsTreatment OutcomePolytetrafluoroethyleneTitaniumhealing complicationosseointegrated implantstitanium meshvertical ridge augmentation

Identifiers

PMID39180274
PMCPMC11629450

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.