SynthesisInternational journal of implant dentistry2025
Comparison between CAD/CAM titanium mesh vs. conventional titanium mesh in bone regeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of implant dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 3D-driven alveolar ridge augmentation based on reverse planning: a retrospective case series study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Clinical application of digital technology in bone augmentation: a narrative review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVertical bone defects remain a challenge in implant dentistry. Titanium mesh (TM) is widely used in guided bone regeneration due to its ability to stabilize grafts, but it requires intraoperative adaptation, increasing surgical time and the risk of complications like mesh exposure. Customized titanium mesh (CTM), designed using CAD/CAM or 3D printing, offers a precise fit and may reduce surgical risks. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare CTM and TM in terms of bone gain and complication rates in vertical ridge augmentation procedures. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic search was carried out in four electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) up to January 2025, with no time restrictions applied. Studies comparing customized titanium mesh (CTM) and conventional titanium mesh (TM) for vertical ridge augmentation were considered eligible if they included at least 10 patients and a minimum follow-up period of 6 months. The primary outcomes were vertical and horizontal bone gain, as well as membrane exposure. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions were performed using R software.
resultsA total of 22 studies were included in the analysis (3 randomized controlled trials, 6 prospective studies, 12 retrospective studies, and 1 cohort study), comprising 608 patients and 1,318 implants. The mean vertical bone gain was 6.24 mm for the TM group and 5.14 mm for the CTM group, with no statistically significant difference between them (P = 0.628). In contrast, CTM achieved significantly greater horizontal bone gain (6.38 mm vs. 3.85 mm; P = 0.004). Membrane exposure occurred more frequently in the TM group (30.9%) than in the CTM group (20.3%), although the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.721). Other complications, such as infections, were also more common in the TM group but did not show statistical significance.
conclusionWithin the limitations of the included studies, CTM appears to offer comparable bone gain to TM, with superior horizontal bone gain and a tendency to fewer complications. The results support the potential advantages of customized mesh in clinical practice. Further randomized trials with standardized protocols and long-term follow-up are recommended to confirm these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.