Comparison Of 3D-Pitm GBR And BRT In Aesthetic Zone

This study compares the clinical efficacy of 3D-printed individualized titanium mesh (3D-PITM) guided bone regeneration (GBR) and autogenous bone ring grafting technique (BRT) in reconstructing complex alveolar bone defects in the anterior maxilla. A retrospective study (June 2018–January 2022) included 29 patients with single-tooth loss and complex anterior maxillary defects: 14 underwent 3D-PITM GBR, and 15 received BRT. Approved by the Ethics Committee. CBCT scans were analyzed at four intervals (preoperative, grafting day, 6–9 months post-surgery, and implantation) using Mimics Research® and Geomagic Wrap® for 3D bone model reconstruction, volumetric measurements, and horizontal/vertical bone gain quantification. Secondary outcomes included complications, Pink/White Esthetic Scores (PES/WES), patient satisfaction (Visual Analog Scale), and marginal bone loss (MBL). Non-parametric statistical analyses (Mann-Whitney U test, p<0.05) were performed using SPSS v26.0. The 3D-PITM group showed significantly greater bone volume gain (382.25 mm³ vs. 288 mm³, p = 0.013), vertical bone height increase (2.26 mm vs. 0.14 mm, p = 0.021) than the BRT group, and horizontal augmentation (5.08 mm vs. 1.86 mm, p = 0.001). Complication rates were comparable, with minor mesh exposure in one 3D-PITM case. No significant differences were found in PES, WES, VAS, or MBL (p > 0.05) 3D-PITM GBR demonstrated superior bone augmentation outcomes compared to BRT in the aesthetic zone. Mesh exposure remains a concern, warranting larger controlled studies to validate long-term efficacy.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
International Dental Journal
Published
2025-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.identj.2025.105584
Primary Topic
Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison Of 3D-Pitm GBR And BRT In Aesthetic Zone

Ya Peng, Yuanding Huang, J. H. Zou
International Dental Journal
Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
article

Comparison Of 3D-Pitm GBR And BRT In Aesthetic Zone

Ya Peng, Yuanding Huang, J. H. Zou
article en

Abstract

This study compares the clinical efficacy of 3D-printed individualized titanium mesh (3D-PITM) guided bone regeneration (GBR) and autogenous bone ring grafting technique (BRT) in reconstructing complex alveolar bone defects in the anterior maxilla. A retrospective study (June 2018–January 2022) included 29 patients with single-tooth loss and complex anterior maxillary defects: 14 underwent 3D-PITM GBR, and 15 received BRT. Approved by the Ethics Committee. CBCT scans were analyzed at four intervals (preoperative, grafting day, 6–9 months post-surgery, and implantation) using Mimics Research® and Geomagic Wrap® for 3D bone model reconstruction, volumetric measurements, and horizontal/vertical bone gain quantification. Secondary outcomes included complications, Pink/White Esthetic Scores (PES/WES), patient satisfaction (Visual Analog Scale), and marginal bone loss (MBL). Non-parametric statistical analyses (Mann-Whitney U test, p<0.05) were performed using SPSS v26.0. The 3D-PITM group showed significantly greater bone volume gain (382.25 mm³ vs. 288 mm³, p = 0.013), vertical bone height increase (2.26 mm vs. 0.14 mm, p = 0.021) than the BRT group, and horizontal augmentation (5.08 mm vs. 1.86 mm, p = 0.001). Complication rates were comparable, with minor mesh exposure in one 3D-PITM case. No significant differences were found in PES, WES, VAS, or MBL (p > 0.05) 3D-PITM GBR demonstrated superior bone augmentation outcomes compared to BRT in the aesthetic zone. Mesh exposure remains a concern, warranting larger controlled studies to validate long-term efficacy.

International Dental JournalVol. 75
Stomatological Hospital of Chongqing Medical University (CN), Chongqing Medical University (CN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 54%
Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.