Linzhi Li1, Chao Wang1,2, Xian Li1, Gang Fu1, Dan Chen1, Yuanding Huang1. 1. Stomatological Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases and Biomedical Sciences, Chongqing Municipal Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedical Engineering of Higher Education, Chongqing, China. 2. Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Biomedical Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100083, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few studies have focused on the dimensional accuracy of customized bone grafting by means of guided bone regeneration (GBR) with 3D-Printed Individual Titanium Mesh (3D-PITM). PURPOSE: Digital technologies were applied to evaluate the dimensional accuracy of customized bone augmentation with 3D-PITM with a two-stage technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen patients were included in this study. The CBCT data of post-GBR (immediate post-GBR) and post-implantation (immediate post-implant placement) were 3D reconstructed and compared with the pre-surgical planned bone augmentation. The dimensional differences were evaluated by superimposition using the Materialize 3-matic software. RESULTS: The superimposition analysis showed that the maximum deviations of contour between were 3.4 mm, and the average differences of the augmentation contour were 0.5 ± 0.4 and 0.6 ± 0.5 mm respectively. The planned volume of bone regeneration was approximately equal to the amount of regenerated bone present 6 to 9 months after the surgical procedure. On average, the vertical gain in bone height was about 0.5 mm less than planned. And, the horizontal bone gain on the straight buccal of the dental implants and 2 to 4 mm apical of the platform fell also about a 0.5 mm short on average. Statistically significant differences were observed between the augmented volume of virtual and post-GBR, and the horizontal bone gain of post-implantation on the level of 4 mm apical to the implant platform (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The dimensional accuracy of customized bone augmentation with the 3D-PITM approach needs further improvement and compared to other surgical approaches of bone augmentation.
BACKGROUND: Few studies have focused on the dimensional accuracy of customized bone grafting by means of guided bone regeneration (GBR) with 3D-Printed Individual Titanium Mesh (3D-PITM). PURPOSE: Digital technologies were applied to evaluate the dimensional accuracy of customized bone augmentation with 3D-PITM with a two-stage technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen patients were included in this study. The CBCT data of post-GBR (immediate post-GBR) and post-implantation (immediate post-implant placement) were 3D reconstructed and compared with the pre-surgical planned bone augmentation. The dimensional differences were evaluated by superimposition using the Materialize 3-matic software. RESULTS: The superimposition analysis showed that the maximum deviations of contour between were 3.4 mm, and the average differences of the augmentation contour were 0.5 ± 0.4 and 0.6 ± 0.5 mm respectively. The planned volume of bone regeneration was approximately equal to the amount of regenerated bone present 6 to 9 months after the surgical procedure. On average, the vertical gain in bone height was about 0.5 mm less than planned. And, the horizontal bone gain on the straight buccal of the dental implants and 2 to 4 mm apical of the platform fell also about a 0.5 mm short on average. Statistically significant differences were observed between the augmented volume of virtual and post-GBR, and the horizontal bone gain of post-implantation on the level of 4 mm apical to the implant platform (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The dimensional accuracy of customized bone augmentation with the 3D-PITM approach needs further improvement and compared to other surgical approaches of bone augmentation.
Authors: Alexander-N Zeller; Elisabeth Goetze; Daniel G E Thiem; Alexander K Bartella; Lukas Seifert; Fabian M Beiglboeck; Juliane Kröplin; Jürgen Hoffmann; Andreas Pabst Journal: Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2022-08-22
Authors: Yilin Shi; Jin Liu; Mi Du; Shengben Zhang; Yue Liu; Hu Yang; Ruiwen Shi; Yuanyuan Guo; Feng Song; Yajun Zhao; Jing Lan Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol Date: 2022-06-28