Introduction

Dental implants have become a successful treatment modality for the totally1  or partially2  edentulous patient. Bone augmentation techniques have been introduced for clinical situations in which there is inadequate bone volume to successfully place dental implants.35  Titanium mesh (TiMe) is a device for guided bone regeneration that has been used with the most desirable outcome in osseous wound space maintenance.5,6 

TiMe has been used successfully in alveolar ridge augmentation,711  sinus augmentation,12  treatment of cleft palate,10,13  and in situations with simultaneous placement of dental implants.14,15  Several authors have used the TiMe in conjunction with a variety of graft materials. Autogenous bone graft,16,17  xenograft,16  allograft,18  hydroxyapatite,19  and bone morphogenetic proteins17,20  have been used successfully with TiMe for alveolar ridge augmentation procedures. The rationale of using a TiMe as a barrier during alveolar ridge augmentation is its rigidity and biocompatibility that provide dimensional stability and isolation to the graft particles.5,21 

Systematic reviews,36  clinical studies,916,19,22  and clinical case reports/series8,20,2326  have reported that exposure of the TiMe is the most commonly occurring complication. There is a wide range of frequency of exposure that has been reported in the literature, ranging from 5%14  up to 50%27  (Table 1). Average bone regeneration with TiMe was 4.91 mm (2.56–8.6 mm) vertically and 4.36 mm (3.75–5.65 mm) horizontally.5 

Table 1

TiMe exposure in a total of 29 articles*

TiMe exposure in a total of 29 articles*
TiMe exposure in a total of 29 articles*
Table 1

Extended

Extended
Extended

Clinical studies have suggested that a certain amount of bone loss might be associated with exposure of the TiMe.* The proposed treatment of an exposed TiMe involves topical application (brushing) of chlorhexidine gel to reduce the possibilities of infection of the surgical site.5  However, in 20% of clinical situations in which exposure of the TiMe occurred, the decision was made to surgically remove the TiMe.5  Surgical removal of the TiMe was associated with an early 3- to 4-week exposure.5,36  Some authors proposed the use of a resorbable29  or nonresorbable27  membrane and/or platelet-rich plasma22  combined with TiMe in an attempt to reduce the frequency of exposure. However, to the authors' best knowledge, there has been no published article in the literature reporting that exposure of the TiMe resulted in bone loss significant enough to prevent placement of dental implants35  or in subsequent loss of dental implants placed in the augmented sites.5 

The purpose of this clinical series report is to introduce a new treatment modality for treating the exposed TiMe. The technique involved removing the exposed portion of the TiMe while leaving the rest of the TiMe in place until bone graft healing and maturation occurs. Removing the portion of the TiMe that has been exposed might allow the soft tissue to migrate over the exposed graft material without disrupting bone healing. The purpose of this treatment approach is to reduce the amount of trauma and maintain the advantages of the TiMe as a space maintenance device.

Clinical Reports

A total of 4 patients were treated at the Center for Prosthodontics and Implant Dentistry at Loma Linda University by the same surgeon (A.A.) between 2015 and 2017. Patients were referred by their restorative doctor to have a staged alveolar ridge augmentation procedure performed along with subsequent implant placement. All included patients had received at least 2 previous failed alveolar ridge augmentations at the pertaining site. All patients received a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) before alveolar ridge augmentation procedures and another CBCT after bone maturation and healing before proceeding with implant surgery. A removable Essix interim provisional was placed in all clinical situations after ridge augmentation was completed. The interim prosthesis was supported by the adjacent teeth and trimmed to have no contact with the soft tissue to avoid interference with tissue healing. All patients were prescribed antibiotics after ridge augmentation procedure (amoxicillin 500 mg every 8 hours for 8 days) and instructed to rinse twice a day with 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate.

Case 1

A 50-year-old female patient was referred for localized alveolar ridge augmentation at the area of teeth Nos. 9 and 10 (Figure 1). A preoperative cone beam confirmed the lack of sufficient bone volume for implant placement in that area. After discussing various treatment options, the decision was made to treat the partial edentulism with bone grafting and subsequent implant placement (Table 2).

Figure 1

Showing case 1. (a) Facial view of defect at time of surgery. (b) Occlusal view of defective alveolar ridge following full-thickness flap reflection. (c) Occlusal view of titanium mesh (TiMe) in position following fixation. (d) Occlusal view of palatal TiMe exposure. (e) Occlusal view at time of partial removal of exposed TiMe. (f) Occlusal view showing healing after partial removal of exposed TiMe. (g) Occlusal view of regenerated alveolar ridge at time of implant placement.

Figure 1

Showing case 1. (a) Facial view of defect at time of surgery. (b) Occlusal view of defective alveolar ridge following full-thickness flap reflection. (c) Occlusal view of titanium mesh (TiMe) in position following fixation. (d) Occlusal view of palatal TiMe exposure. (e) Occlusal view at time of partial removal of exposed TiMe. (f) Occlusal view showing healing after partial removal of exposed TiMe. (g) Occlusal view of regenerated alveolar ridge at time of implant placement.

Table 2

Patient and defect data pre- and postgrafting providing location and size of titanium mesh exposure and end result following the described clinical protocol

Patient and defect data pre- and postgrafting providing location and size of titanium mesh exposure and end result following the described clinical protocol
Patient and defect data pre- and postgrafting providing location and size of titanium mesh exposure and end result following the described clinical protocol
Table 2

Extended

Extended
Extended

After a crestal incision was performed, full-thickness labial and palatal flaps were reflected. The buccal flap was extended beyond the mucogingival junction to facilitate primary closure. In addition, the recipient site was perforated to induce bleeding and promote the incorporation of the graft.40  A 50/50% mix of cortical 1.0–2.0 mm amd 0.25–1 mm particulate bone allograft (Puros, Zimmer Biomet, Carslbad, Calif) was used. The TiMe was trimmed to fit the edentulous area, while contact of the mesh with the adjacent teeth was avoided.16  The graft was loaded on the TiMe (Titanium Augmentation Micro Mesh, ACE Surgical Supply Co, Brockton, Mass) and placed at the recipient site. Periosteal fenestration41,42  was performed along the labial flap to enable primary closure. The mesh was secured in place with fixation screws (truSCREW, ACE Surgical Supply Co). A resorbable bilayered collagen membrane (Bio-gide, Geistlich Parma AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland) was used over the TiMe, and the flap was then sutured.

Exposure of the TiMe was observed during the fourth week after the initial alveolar ridge augmentation procedure. The exposure occurred at the palatal aspect of the edentulous area. The exposure was measured with a periodontal probe to be 4 × 4 mm. The portion of the exposed TiMe was removed using carbide burs (Nos. 557 and 8 carbide bur, Brasseler Dental Instrumentation, Savannah, Ga) and scissors at the 12th week after the initial grafting procedure and 8 weeks after the exposure was noted (Table 2). The remaining portion of the mesh was left submerged until 6.5 months after grafting.

Full-thickness labial and palatal flaps were reflected, and the mesh was removed. The graft appeared well integrated. There was some minimal amount of granulation tissue at the area. Postoperative CBCT was performed after mesh removal to evaluate bone availability for implant placement. A comparison of the preoperative and postoperative CBCTs revealed 4.1 mm of horizontal and 4.5 mm of vertical ridge augmentation. The flaps were then sutured, and the patient was scheduled for subsequent implant surgery. The obtained bone volume was adequate for implant placement.

Case 2

A 47-year-old male patient was referred for localized alveolar ridge augmentation at the area of tooth No. 8 (Figure 2). A preoperative CBCT confirmed the lack of sufficient bone volume (Table 2). Surgical technique and bone graft material were identical to that described in case 1, with the exception of replacing the resorbable bilayered collagen membrane (Bio-gide, Geistlich Biomaterials) with a platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) membrane over the TiMe.

Figure 2

Showing case 2. (a) Facial view of defect at time of surgery. (b) Occlusal view of defective alveolar ridge following full-thickness flap reflection. (c) Occlusal view of titanium mesh (TiMe) in position following fixation. (d) Facial view of TiMe exposure at the crest of the ridge with facial extension. (e) Occlusal view of TiMe exposure. (f) Facial view at time of partial removal of exposed TiMe. (g) Occlusal view at time of partial removal of exposed TiMe. (h) Occlusal view showing healing after partial removal of exposed TiMe. (i) Occlusal view of regenerated alveolar ridge at time of implant placement.

Figure 2

Showing case 2. (a) Facial view of defect at time of surgery. (b) Occlusal view of defective alveolar ridge following full-thickness flap reflection. (c) Occlusal view of titanium mesh (TiMe) in position following fixation. (d) Facial view of TiMe exposure at the crest of the ridge with facial extension. (e) Occlusal view of TiMe exposure. (f) Facial view at time of partial removal of exposed TiMe. (g) Occlusal view at time of partial removal of exposed TiMe. (h) Occlusal view showing healing after partial removal of exposed TiMe. (i) Occlusal view of regenerated alveolar ridge at time of implant placement.

Exposure of the TiMe was observed during the first week after the initial grafting procedure. The exposure occurred at the crestal aspect of the edentulous area and extended toward the labial aspect. The exposure was measured to be 6 × 10 mm. The portion of the exposed TiMe was removed the 10th week after the initial grafting procedure. The remaining portion of the mesh was left submerged until 6.5 months after grafting.

During the surgical removal of the TiMe, the graft appeared well integrated. Similarly to case 1, there was some minimal amount of granulation tissue at the area. A comparison of the preoperative and postoperative CBCTs revealed 7.8 mm of horizontal and 4.6 mm of vertical ridge augmentation. The obtained bone volume was sufficient for implant placement.

Case 3

A 44-year-old female patient was referred for bone grafting at the area of teeth Nos. 9–11 (Figure 3). All surgical procedures for TiMe placement and removal were identical to that described in case 1, except that fresh frozen allograft was used (Osteocell Plus, ACE Surgical Co), a resorbable thick spongious scaffold collagen membrane (Mucograft, Geistlich Pharma AG) instead of the resorbable bilayered collagen membrane, and TiMe used was Ridge-Form Mesh (OsteoMed, Addison, Tex; Table 2).

Figure 3

Showing case 3. (a) Facial view of defect at time of surgery. (b) Occlusal view of defective alveolar ridge following full-thickness flap reflection. (c) Occlusal view of TiMe in position following fixation. (d) Occlusal view of TiMe exposure at crest of ridge. (e) Occlusal view at time of partial removal of exposed TiMe. (f) Occlusal view showing healing after partial removal of exposed TiMe. (g) Occlusal view of regenerated alveolar ridge at time of implant placement.

Figure 3

Showing case 3. (a) Facial view of defect at time of surgery. (b) Occlusal view of defective alveolar ridge following full-thickness flap reflection. (c) Occlusal view of TiMe in position following fixation. (d) Occlusal view of TiMe exposure at crest of ridge. (e) Occlusal view at time of partial removal of exposed TiMe. (f) Occlusal view showing healing after partial removal of exposed TiMe. (g) Occlusal view of regenerated alveolar ridge at time of implant placement.

Exposure of the mesh occurred the sixth week after initial surgery. The exposed portion was removed 4 weeks later. The exposure area of the TiMe was measured to be 11 × 4 mm, and it was located along the crest of the edentulous area. The remaining portion of the TiMe was left submerged and surgically removed 6.5 months after the initial bone-grafting procedure.

During the surgical procedure for removing the TiMe, the graft appeared well integrated. Similarly to previous cases, there was some minimal amount of granulation tissue present. Radiographic analysis revealed 4.6 mm of horizontal and 7.0 mm of vertical ridge augmentation.

Case 4

A 27-year-old male patient was referred for ridge augmentation at the area of tooth No. 9 (Figure 4). Surgical procedures were performed as described in case 1, except that a PRF membrane was used also over the resorbable bilayered collagen membrane (Bio-gide, Geistlich Biomaterials). Cancellous particulate bone allograft (Puros, Zimmer Biomet) was used as the graft material.

Figure 4

Showing case 4. (a) Facial view of defect at time of surgery. (b) Occlusal view of defective alveolar ridge following full-thickness flap reflection. (c) Occlusal view of titanium mesh (TiMe) in position following fixation. (d) Occlusal view of TiMe palatal exposure. (e) Occlusal view at time of partial removal of exposed TiMe. (f) Occlusal view showing healing after partial removal of exposed TiMe. (g) Occlusal view of regenerated alveolar ridge at time of implant placement.

Figure 4

Showing case 4. (a) Facial view of defect at time of surgery. (b) Occlusal view of defective alveolar ridge following full-thickness flap reflection. (c) Occlusal view of titanium mesh (TiMe) in position following fixation. (d) Occlusal view of TiMe palatal exposure. (e) Occlusal view at time of partial removal of exposed TiMe. (f) Occlusal view showing healing after partial removal of exposed TiMe. (g) Occlusal view of regenerated alveolar ridge at time of implant placement.

Exposure of the TiMe was observed during the third week after the initial surgery. The exposure occurred at the palatal aspect of the edentulous area. The exposure was measured to be 5 × 3 mm. The portion of the exposed TiMe was removed the fifth week after the initial grafting procedure (Table 2). The remaining portion of the mesh was left submerged until 6 months after grafting.

Upon surgical removal of the TiMe, the graft appeared well integrated while the presence of granulation tissue at the area was consistent as with previous cases. Radiographic measurements revealed 5.4 mm of horizontal and 3.1 mm of vertical ridge augmentation. The obtained bone volume was adequate for implant placement.

Discussion

The significance of the current case series report is that it provides a suggested treatment modality for addressing a frequent complication associated with utilization of the TiMe as a barrier for localized alveolar ridge augmentation. The current report indicated an average 4.8 mm of vertical alveolar ridge augmentation and 5.5 mm of horizontal augmentation. The obtained augmentation is consistent with the typical alveolar ridge augmentation that has been reported in the literature.5  Racia-dal Polo et al5  in a systemic review indicated that utilization of a TiMe as a barrier resulted in 4.91 mm of vertical ridge augmentation and 4.36 mm of horizontal augmentation. It should be noted that comparing various studies should be performed with caution because different graft materials and different techniques have been implemented in the published literature. However, despite the divergence of grafting materials and techniques, the preliminary findings indicate that removing the exposed portion of the mesh and allowing the remaining portion to be submerged may not compromise the final clinical outcome.

An interesting finding in this case series study was that all of the patients with TiMe exposure had received at least 2 failed alveolar ridge augmentations previously. In addition, each patient had received a different surgical technique in terms of the type of membrane used to cover the TiMe. In cases 2 and 4, a PRF membrane was used. Cases 1 and 3 were without a PRF membrane and yet all had TiMe exposure. The PRF membrane failed to prevent TiMe exposure with the presented cases. There could be a cause-and-effect relationship between multiple-site entry and future TiMe exposure. It would be of great interest to explore this theory with a future study that has a broader sample size.

There is a controversy in the literature regarding the effect of TiMe exposure on bone volume. While several authors have reported no effect of the exposure on the volume of bone grafting,10,23,36  others have reported that bone loss occurs when the TiMe is exposed.9,11,14,16,27,35  Despite the reported loss of bone volume, when this occurred, the obtained bone volume was sufficient to place implants.11,14,35  However, von Arx at el27  experienced a clinical situation in which the exposure of the TiMe resulted in significant bone loss that precluded placement of implants. The effect of the size of the exposure, the timing of the exposure after the initial ridge augmentation procedure, and the type of graft material on the final clinical outcome are elements that need to be studied.

There is a scarcity in the literature regarding the quality of the obtained osseous tissue when exposure of the TiMe occurs. Proussaefs et al16  published a case series report in which histologic specimens were obtained and analyzed from alveolar ridges where a localized alveolar ridge augmentation procedure was performed by using a TiMe as a barrier. In their study, in which histomorphometric analysis was performed, the exposed sites had lesser bone formation while a bigger portion of connective tissue was present at the augmented sites associated with mesh exposure. It might be suggested that in addition to the reduced bone volume, exposure of the mesh may result in decreased quality of the augmented alveolus. While further research is needed to validate this hypothesis, the preliminary results of the current case series report indicate that treating the complication of TiMe exposure by removing the exposed portion of the mesh may result in bone-grafting results similar to clinical situations in which the mesh had not been exposed.

In the current case series, the remaining portion of the TiMe was removed 1 to 2 months before placement of the implants. Removal of the mesh was performed as a separate surgical procedure. Boyne et al7  observed the presence of a newly formed connective layer along with granulation tissue under the mesh (“pseudo periosteum”). The presence of abundant granulation tissue underneath the mesh may indicate placement of implants at a later stage.7,9,16  The clinical significance of this connective and granulation tissue layer is unknown. Proussaefs et al43  suggested that the micromovement of the titanium barrier could induce the formation of this layer of connective and granulation tissue. While this suggestion has not been validated, removing the portion of the exposed mesh may result in lesser TiMe micromovement and lesser amount of granulation tissue formation.

The limitations of the current cases series report are the limited number of patients and the lack of long-term follow-up. In addition, histologic analysis of the augmented alveolus would have offered valuable information regarding the quality of the augmented alveolus.

In summary, the proposed removal of the exposed portion of the TiMe might offer results similar to results associated with nonexposed sites. Further clinical research and increased patient volume are needed before applying this technique on a routine basis.

Conclusion

Removing the exposed portion of the TiMe did not have a negative effect clinically on the integration of the grafted bone and the bone volume available for implant placement. Furthermore, it allowed for easier hygiene maintenance by the patient at the grafted site. Further research is needed before definitive conclusions can be made.

Abbreviations

    Abbreviations
     
  • CBCT

    cone beam computed tomography

  •  
  • DBBM

    deproteinized anorganic bovine bone

  •  
  • PRF

    platelet-rich fibrin

  •  
  • rHBMP-2

    recombinant human bone morphogenic protein–2

  •  
  • TiMe

    titanium mesh

Note

The authors report no conflicts of interest related to this study.

References

References
1
Adell
R.
Lekholm
U.
Rockler
B.
Branemark
PI. A
15 year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw
.
Int J Oral Surg
.
1981
;
10
:
387
416
.
2
Jemt
T.
Lekholm
U.
Adell
R.
Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of partially edentulous patients: a preliminary study of 876 consecutively installed fixtures
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
1989
;
4
:
211
217
.
3
Milinkovic
I.
Cordaro
L.
Are there specific indications for the different alveolar bone augmentation procedures for implant placement? A systematic review
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg
.
2014
;
43
:
606
625
.
4
Clementini
M.
Morlupi
A.
Canullo
L.
Agrestini
C.
Barlattani
A.
Success rate of dental implants inserted in horizontal and vertical guided bone regenerated areas: a systematic review
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg
.
2012
;
41
:
847
852
.
5
Racia-dal Polo MR, Poli PP, Rancitelli D, Beretta M, Maiorana C
.
Alveolar ridge reconstruction with titanium meshes: a systematic review of the literature
.
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal
.
2014
;
19
:
639
646
.
6
Rakhmatia
YD.
Ayukawa
Y.
Furuhashi
A.
Koyano
K.
Current barrier membranes: titanium mesh and other membranes for guided bone regeneration in dental application
.
J Prosthodont Res
.
2013
;
57
:
3
14
.
7
Boyne
PJ.
Cole
MD.
Stringer
D.
Shafqat
JP.
A technique for osseous restoration of deficient edentulous maxillary ridges
.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg
.
1985
;
43
:
87
91
.
8
Lozada
J.
Proussaefs
P.
Clinical, radiographic, and histologic evaluation of maxillary bone reconstruction by using a titanium mesh and autogenous iliac graft: a case report
.
J Oral Implantol
.
2002
;
28
:
9
14
.
9
Proussaefs
P.
Lozada
J.
Use of titanium mesh for staged localized alveolar ridge augmentation: clinical and histologic-histomorphometric evaluation
.
J Oral Implantol
.
2006
;
32
:
237
247
.
10
Roccuzzo
M.
Ramieri
GG.
Bunino
M.
Berronr
S.
Alveolar bone graft for patients with cleft lip/palate using bone particles and titanium mesh: a quantitative study
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2007
;
18
:
286
294
.
11
Her
S.
Kang
T.
Fien
MJ.
Titanium mesh as an alternative to a membrane for ridge augmentation
.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg
.
2012
;
70
:
803
810
.
12
Papadogeorgakis
N.
Prokopidi
ME.
Kourtis
S.
The use of titanium mesh in sinus augmentation
.
Implant Dent
.
2010
;
19
:
109
114
.
13
Matsui
Y.
Obta
M.
Obno
K.
Nagumo
M.
Alveolar bone graft for patients with cleft lip/palate using bone particles and titanium mesh: a quantitative study
.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg
.
2006
;
64
:
1540
1546
.
14
von Arx
VT.
Kurt
B.
Implant placement and simultaneous ridge augmentation using autogenous bone and a micro titanium mesh: a prospective clinical study with 20 implants
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
1999
:
10
;
24
33
.
15
von Arx
VT.
Kurt
B.
Implant placement and simultaneous peri-implant bone grafting using a micro titanium mesh for graft stabilization
.
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
.
1998
;
18
:
117
127
.
16
Proussaefs
P.
Lozada
J.
Kleinman
A.
Rohrer
MD.
McMillan
PJ.
The use of titanium mesh in conjunction with autogenous bone graft and inorganic bovine bone mineral (Bio-Oss) for localized alveolar ridge augmentation: a human study
.
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
.
2003
;
23
:
185
195
.
17
de Freitas
RM.
Susin
C.
Spin-Neto
R.
Marcantonio
C.
Wikesjö
UM.
Pereira
LA.
Marcantonio
E.
Horizontal ridge augmentation of the atrophic anterior maxilla using rhBMP-2/ACS or autogenous bone grafts: a proof-of-concept randomized clinical trial
.
J Clin Periodontol
.
2013
;
40
:
968
976
.
18
Misch
CM.
Jensen
OT.
Pikos
MA.
Malmquist
JP.
Vertical bone augmentation using recombinant bone morphogenetic protein, mineralized bone allograft, and titanium mesh: a retrospective cone beam computed tomography study
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2015
;
30
:
202
207
.
19
Ducic
Y.
Titanium mesh and hydroxyapatite cement cranioplasty: a report of 20 cases
.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg
.
2002
;
60
:
272
276
.
20
Misch
CM.
Bone augmentation of the atrophic posterior mandible for dental implants using rhBMP-2 and titanium mesh: clinical technique and early results
.
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
.
2011
;
31
:
581
589
.
21
Louis
PJ.
Vertical ridge augmentation using titanium mesh
.
Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am
.
2010
;
22
:
353
368
.
22
Torres
J.
Tamimi
F.
Alkhraisat
MH.
et al.
Platelet-rich plasma may prevent titanium-mesh exposure in alveolar ridge augmentation with anorganic bovine bone
.
J Clin Periodontol
.
2010
;
37
:
943
951
.
23
Artzi
Z.
Dayan
D.
Alpern
Y.
Nemcovsky
CE.
Vertical ridge augmentation using xenogenic material supported by a configured titanium mesh: clinicohistopathologic and histochemical study
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2003
;
18
:
440
446
.
24
Chan
HL.
Benavides
E.
Tsai
CY.
Wang
HL.
A titanium mesh and particulate allograft for vertical ridge augmentation in the posterior mandible: a pilot study
.
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
.
2015
;
35
:
515
522
.
25
De Angelis
N.
De Lorenzi
M.
Benedicenti
S.
Surgical combined approach for alveolar ridge augmentation with titanium mesh and rhPDGF-BB: a 3-year clinical case series
.
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
.
2015
;
35
:
231
237
.
26
Funato
A.
Ishikawa
T.
Kitajima
H.
Yamada
M.
Moroi
H.
A novel combined surgical approach to vertical alveolar ridge augmentation with titanium mesh, resorbable membrane, and rhPDGF-BB: a retrospective consecutive case series
.
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
.
2013
;
33
:
437
445
.
27
von Arx
T.
Hardt
N.
Wallkamm
B.
The TIME technique: a new method for localized alveolar ridge augmentation prior to placement of dental implants
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
1996
;
11
:
387
394
.
28
Malchiodi
L.
Scarano
A.
Quaranta
M.
Piattelli
A.
Rigid fixation by means of titanium mesh in edentulous ridge expansion for horizontal ridge augmentation in the maxilla
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
1998
;
13
:
701
705
.
29
Leghissa
GC.
Zaffe
D.
Assenza
B.
Botticelli
AR.
Guided bone regeneration using titanium grids: report of 10 cases
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
1999
;
10
:
62
68
.
30
Assenza
B.
Piattelli
M.
Scarano
A.
Lezzi
G.
Petrone
G.
Piattelli
A.
Localized ridge augmentation using titanium micromesh
.
J Oral Implantol
.
2001
;
27
:
287
292
.
31
Maiorana
C.
Santoro
F.
Rabagliati
M.
Salina
S.
Evaluation of the use of iliac cancellous bone and anorganic bovine bone in the reconstruction of the atrophic maxilla with titanium mesh: a clinical and histologic investigation
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2001
;
16
:
427
432
.
32
Degidi
M.
Scarano
A.
Piattelli
A.
Regeneration of the alveolar crest using titanium micromesh with autologous bone and a resorbable membrane
.
J Oral Implantol
.
2003
;
29
:
86
90
.
33
Roccuzzo
M.
Ramieri
G.
Spada
MC.
Bianchi
SD.
Berrone
S.
Vertical alveolar ridge augmentation by means of a titanium mesh and autogenous bone grafts
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2004
;
15
:
73
81
.
34
Molly
L.
Quirynen
M.
Michiels
K.
van Steenberghe
D.
Comparison between jaw bone augmentation by means of a stiff occlusive titanium membrane or an autologous hip graft: a retrospective clinical assessment
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2006
;
17
:
481
487
.
35
Pieri
F.
Corinaldesi
G.
Fini
M.
Aldini
NN.
Giardino
R.
Marchetti
C.
Alveolar ridge augmentation with titanium mesh and a combination of autogenous bone and anorganic bovine bone: a 2-year prospective study
.
J Periodontol
.
2008
;
79
:
2093
2103
.
36
Corinaldesi
G.
Pieri
F.
Sapigni
L.
Marchetti
C.
Evaluation of survival and success rates of dental implants placed at the time of or after alveolar ridge augmentation with an autogenous mandibular bone graft and titanium mesh: a 3- to 8-year retrospective study
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2009
;
24
:
1119
1128
.
37
Miyamoto
I.
Funaki
K.
Yamauchi
K.
Kodama
T.
Takahashi
T.
Alveolar ridge reconstruction with titanium mesh and autogenous particulate bone graft: computed tomography-based evaluations of augmented bone quality and quantity
.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res
.
2012
;
14
:
304
311
.
38
Poli
PP.
Beretta
M.
Cicciù
M.
Maiorana
C.
Alveolar ridge augmentation with titanium mesh: a retrospective clinical study
.
Open Dent J
.
2014
;
8
:
148
158
.
39
Uehara
S.
Kurita
H.
Shimane
T.
et al.
Predictability of staged localized alveolar ridge augmentation using a micro titanium mesh
.
Oral Maxillofac Surg
.
2015
;
19
:
411
416
.
40
De Carvalho
PS.
Vasconcellos
LW.
Pi
J.
Influence of bed preparation on the incorporation of autogenous bone grafts: a study in dogs
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2000
;
15
:
565
570
.
41
Corn
H.
Periosteal separation: its clinical significance
.
J Periodontol
.
1962
;
33
:
140
153
.
42
Carranza
FA.
Carraro
JJ.
Dotto
CA.
Effect of periosteal fenestration in gingival extension operations
.
J Periodontol
.
1966
;
37
:
335
340
.
43
Proussaefs
P.
Lozada
J.
The use of resorbable collagen membrane in conjunction with autogenous bone graft and inorganic bovine mineral for buccal/labial alveolar ridge augmentation: a pilot study
.
J Prosthet Dent
.
2003
;
90
:
530
538
.
*

References 5,9,12,22,27–32,34,37,39,43.