A systematic review according to PRISMA statement has been designed to answer the preliminary question: “In titanium mesh exposures, is there a treatment alternative which leads to an increased graft maintenance?” and fill the PICO assessment out.
Objective:
To review studies published in the past 20 years (1999-2019) in which mesh exposure has occurred, detecting the suitable approaches to treat exposure allowing the graft maintenance.
Methods:
Initial search on PUBMED, SCOPUS, and COCHRANE databases resulted in 777 articles, and hand-searching identified 6 articles. After removing duplicates and unrelated articles, eligibility criteria were applied, and 31 studies were selected (randomized clinical trials, retrospective/prospective clinical trials, and case series).
Results:
A total of 677 surgical sites and 225 cases of mesh exposure were identified. Eleven treatments have been identified. Chlorhexidine was the primary approach in 46% of cases, followed by oral hygiene instructions and follow-up with 22.5% of occurrences. In 21% of clinical situations, titanium mesh removal was the treatment of choice, associated with other measures (i.e., antibiotic prescription). There seems to be a consensus in cases of infection. When this complication was associated with tissue dehiscence, the primary treatment was mesh removal. The same does not occur when the site needs to be cleaned for long-term periods.
Conclusion:
In 2 decades of use of titanium meshes, the available treatments do not seem to have evolved, and there is not enough data to establish a guideline.
BrkovicBMBPrasadHSRohrerMD, et al.Beta-tricalcium phosphate/type I collagen cones with or without a barrier membrane in human extraction socket healing: clinical, histologic, histomorphometric, and immunohistochemical evaluation. Clin Oral Investig. 2012;16(2):581–590.
2.
MarxREArmentanoLOlavarriaASamaniegoJ. rhBMP-2/ACS grafts versus autogenous cancellous marrow grafts in large vertical defects of the maxilla: an unsponsored randomized open-label clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013;28(5):e243–e251.
3.
von ArxTKurtB. Implant placement and simultaneous peri-implant bone grafting using a micro titanium mesh for graft stabilization. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1998;18(2):117–127.
4.
von ArxTKurtB. 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(1):24–33.
5.
LizioGCorinaldesiGMarchettiC. Alveolar ridge reconstruction with titanium mesh: a three-dimensional evaluation of factors affecting bone augmentation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29(6):1354–1363.
6.
YamadaHNakaokaKHoriuchiT, et al.Mandibular reconstruction using custom-made titanium mesh tray and particulate cancellous bone and marrow harvested from bilateral posterior ilia. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2014;48(3):183–190.
7.
CioccaLLizioGBaldissaraPSambucoAScottiRCorinaldesiG. Prosthetically CAD-CAM-guided bone augmentation of atrophic jaws using customized titanium mesh: preliminary results of an open prospective study. J Oral Implantol. 2018;44(2):131–137.
8.
MalchiodiLScaranoAQuarantaMPiattelliA. 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(5):701–705.
9.
TrentoGSCarvalhoPHAMacedoDVGabrielliMACMonnazziMSPereira-FilhoVA. Titanium mesh associated with rhBMP-2 in alveolar ridge reconstruction. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;48(4):546–553.
10.
TorresJTamimiFAlkhraisatMH, et al.Platelet-rich plasma may prevent titanium-mesh exposure in alveolar ridge augmentation with anorganic bovine bone. J Clin Periodontol. 2010;37(10):943–951.
KhameesJDarwicheMAKochajiN. Alveolar ridge augmentation using chin bone graft, bovine bone mineral, and titanium mesh: clinical, histological, and histomorphomtric study. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2012;16(2):235–240.
13.
PoliPPBerettaMCicciùMMaioranaC. Alveolar ridge augmentation with titanium mesh. A retrospective clinical study. Open Dent J. 2014;8:148–158.
14.
Rasia dal PoloMPoliPPRancitelliDBerettaMMaioranaC. Alveolar ridge reconstruction with titanium meshes: a systematic review of the literature. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal.
2014;19(6):e639–e646.
15.
BriguglioFFalcomatàDMarconciniSFiorilloLBriguglioRFarronatoD. The use of titanium mesh in guided bone regeneration: a systematic review. Int J Dent.
2019;2019:906542. doi:10.1155/2019/9065423
16.
HerSKangTFienMJ. Titanium mesh as an alternative to a membrane for ridge augmentation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;70(4):803–810.
17.
De StavolaLTunkelJ. The role played by a suspended external-internal suture in reducing marginal flap tension after bone reconstruction: a clinical prospective cohort study in the maxilla. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29(4):921–926.
18.
SaghebKSchiegnitzEMoergelMWalterCAl-NawasBWagnerW. Clinical outcome of alveolar ridge augmentation with individualized CAD-CAM-produced titanium mesh. Int J Implant Dent. 2017;3(1):36. doi:10.1186/s40729-017-0097-z
19.
AbrahamssonPWälivaaraDÅIsakssonSAnderssonG. Periosteal expansion before local bone reconstruction using a new technique for measuring soft tissue profile stability: a clinical study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;70(10):e521–e530.
20.
MertensCThieleOEngelMSeebergerRHoffmannJFreierK. The use of self-inflating soft tissue expanders prior to bone augmentation of atrophied alveolar ridges. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015;17(1):44–51.
21.
AltiparmakNUckanSBayramBSoydanS. Comparison of tunnel and crestal incision techniques in reconstruction of localized alveolar defects. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017;32(5):1103–1110.
22.
LizioGMazzoneNCorinaldesiGMarchettiC. Reconstruction of extended and morphologically varied alveolar ridge defects with the titanium mesh technique: clinical and dental implants outcomes. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2016;36(5):689–697.
23.
PellegrinoGLizioGCorinaldesiGMarchettiC. Titanium mesh technique in rehabilitation of totally edentulous atrophic maxillae: a retrospective case series. J Periodontol. 2016;87(5):519–528.
24.
Al-ArdahAJAlHelalAProussaefsPAlBaderBAl HumaidanAALozadaJ. Managing titanium mesh exposure with partial removal of the exposed site: a case series study. J Oral Implantol. 2017;43(6):482–490.
25.
RoccuzzoMRamieriGSpadaMCBianchiSDBerroneS. Vertical alveolar ridge augmentation by means of a titanium mesh and autogenous bone grafts. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004;15(1):73–81.
26.
RoccuzzoMRamieriGBuninoMBerroneS. Autogenous bone graft alone or associated with titanium mesh for vertical alveolar ridge augmentation: a controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;18(3):286–294.
27.
CucchiAVignudelliENapolitanoAMarchettiCCorinaldesiG. Evaluation of complication rates and vertical bone gain after guided bone regeneration with non-resorbable membranes versus titanium meshes and resorbable membranes. A randomized clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017;19(5):821–832.
28.
AtefMTarekAShaheenMAlarawiRMAskarN. Horizontal ridge augmentation using native collagen membrane vs titanium mesh in atrophic maxillary ridges: randomized clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2020;22(2):156–166.
29.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJAltmanDG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.
30.
MouraLBCarvalhoPHAXavierCB, et al.Autogenous non-vascularized bone graft in segmental mandibular reconstruction: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg.
2016;45(11):1388–1394.
31.
La TorreGChiaradiaGGianfagnaFDe LaurentisABocciaSRicciardiW. Quality assessment in meta-analysis. Ital J Public Heal. 2006;3(2):44–50.
32.
ClementiniMMorlupiACanulloLAgrestiniCBarlattaniA. Success rate of dental implants inserted in horizontal and vertical guided bone regenerated areas: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;41(7):847–852.
33.
NaenniNSchneiderDJungREHüslerJHämmerleCHFThomaDS. Randomized clinical study assessing two membranes for guided bone regeneration of peri-implant bone defects: clinical and histological outcomes at 6 months. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(10):1309–1317.
34.
MerliMMiganiMEspositoM. Vertical ridge augmentation with autogenous bone grafts: resorbable barriers supported by ostheosynthesis plates versus titanium-reinforced barriers. A preliminary report of a blinded, randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22(3):373–382.
35.
ProussaefsPLozadaJKleinmanARohrerMDMcMillanPJ. 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(2):185–195.
36.
MaioranaCSantoroFRabagliatiMSalinaS. 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(3):427–432.
37.
LouisPJGuttaRSaid-Al-NaiefNBartolucciAA. Reconstruction of the maxilla and mandible with particulate bone graft and titanium mesh for implant placement. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;66(2):235–245.
38.
Zita GomesRParaud FreixasAHanCHBecharaSTawilI. Alveolar ridge reconstruction with titanium meshes and simultaneous implant placement: a retrospective, multicenter clinical study. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:1–12.
39.
PieriFCorinaldesiGFiniMAldiniNNGiardinoRMarchettiC. 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(11):2093–2103.
40.
KhannaRKhannaRPardheNDSrivastavaNBajpaiMGuptaS. Pure titanium membrane (ultra-Ti®) in the treatment of periodontal osseous defects: a split-mouth comparative study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(9):ZC47–ZC51.
41.
HartmannAHildebrandtHSchmohlJUKämmererPW. Evaluation of risk parameters in bone regeneration using a customized titanium mesh: results of a clinical study. Implant Dent. 2019;28(6):543–550.
42.
TallaricoMCerusoFMMuzziL, et al.Effect of simultaneous immediate implant placement and guided bone reconstruction with ultra-fine titanium mesh membranes on radiographic and clinical parameters after 18 months of loading. Materials (Basel). 2019;12(10):1710. doi:10.3390/MA12101710
43.
ArtziZDayanDAlpernYNemcovskyCE. Vertical ridge augmentation using xenogenic material supported by a configured titanium mesh: clinicohistopathologic and histochemical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003;18(3):440–446.
44.
ProussaefsPLozadaJ. Use of titanium mesh for staged localized alveolar ridge augmentation: clinical and histologic-histomorphometric evaluation. J Oral Implantol. 2006;32(5):237–247.
45.
MiyamotoIFunakiKYamauchiKKodamaTTakahashiT. 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(2):304–311.
46.
StrietzelFPReichartPAGrafHL. Lateral alveolar ridge augmentation using a synthetic nano-crystalline hydroxyapatite bone substitution material (Ostim): preliminary clinical and histological results. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;18(6):743–751.
47.
FunatoAIshikawaTKitajimaHYamadaMMoroiH. 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(4):437–445.
48.
UeharaSKuritaHShimaneT, et al.Predictability of staged localized alveolar ridge augmentation using a micro titanium mesh. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;19(4):411–416.
49.
KimYKimTKLeemDH. Clinical study of a flap advancement technique without vertical incision for guided bone regeneration. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015;30(5):1113–1118.
50.
CucchiASartoriMParrilliAAldiniNNVignudelliECorinaldesiG. Histological and histomorphometric analysis of bone tissue after guided bone regeneration with non-resorbable membranes vs resorbable membranes and titanium mesh. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019;21(4):693–701. doi: 10.1111/cid.12814.
51.
GiannelliMChelliniFMargheriMTonelliPTaniA. Effect of chlorhexidine digluconate on different cell types: a molecular and ultrastructural investigation. Toxicol Vitr. 2008;22(2):308–317.
52.
MarxREArmentanoLOlavarriaASamaniegoJ. rhBMP-2/ACS grafts versus autogenous cancellous marrow grafts in large vertical defects of the maxilla: an unsponsored randomized open-label clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013;28(5):e243–51. doi: 10.11607/jomi.te04.
53.
CellettiRDavarpanahMEtienneD, et al.Guided tissue regeneration around dental implants in immediate extraction sockets: comparison of e-PTFE and a new titanium membrane. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1994;14(3):242–253.
54.
KanJYKRungcharassaengKLozadaJLZimmermanG. Facial gingival tissue stability following immediate placement and provisionalization of maxillary anterior single implants: a 2- to 8-year follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011;26(1):179–187.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
