Reduced Surgical Complications in Graft‐Masked <scp>3D</scp> Ti Mesh for Alveolar Augmentation: A Retrospective Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare the effectiveness of different bone grafting techniques, including unmasked meshes and graft-masked meshes approaches, for augmenting alveolar bone defects using 3D-printed titanium mesh (3D-TM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 34 patients (69 teeth with alveolar bone defects) who underwent guided bone regeneration (GBR) using 3D-printed titanium mesh (3D-TM). Patients were assigned to two groups: the unmasked meshes group (n = 17, 34 treatment sites) and the graft-masked meshes group (n = 17, 35 treatment sites). Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) data of pre- and post-operative 3D-TM implantation were digitally reconstructed, with a minimum 6-month follow-up period. Clinical outcomes included titanium mesh exposure rates, pseudo-periosteum rates, and osteogenic efficiency metrics such as bone volume, vertical bone height/width, and bone contour. Bone volume was analyzed using samples t-tests, vertical bone height/width was analyzed using a generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, and bone contour was analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Categorical outcomes were evaluated via Fisher's exact probability test. RESULTS: Clinical complications analysis revealed distinct outcomes between the two groups. Titanium mesh exposure occurred in 7 cases overall, with no statistically significant difference between the unmasked meshes group (5/17, 29.4%) and the graft-masked meshes group (2/17, 11.8%) (Fisher's exact test, p = 0.398). In contrast, pseudo-periosteum demonstrated a significant discrepancy, observed in 14/17 cases (82.4%) in the unmasked meshes group compared to 4/17 cases (23.5%) in the graft-masked meshes group (Fisher's exact test, p = 0.002). Notably, no infections occurred in either group. Analysis of osteogenic efficacy revealed significant intergroup differences in bone volume ratio (Independent samples t-test, df = 32, p < 0.05), vertical bone height ratio, and width ratio (GEE, df = 1, p < 0.05), and bone contour accuracy at the minimum and 25% percentiles (Mann-Whitney U test, p < 0.05). No significant differences were observed at the 50%, 75% percentile, or maximum value. CONCLUSION: The graft-masked meshes technique in 3D-TM guided bone regeneration surgery is a reliable and effective method for augmenting alveolar bone defects. This method effectively reduces procedure-related complications, including titanium mesh exposure and pseudo-periosteum, thereby improving osteogenic efficacy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".