Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 2026
Efficacy of Custom-Made Zirconia Sheet Versus Polytetrafluoroethylene as a Non-resorbable Barrier in Maxillary Alveolar Ridge Augmentation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sakr Muhammad Ibrahim, Salem Ahmed Sobhy, Yaseen Ayman Ahmed, Mansour Noha Ahmed, Abdel-Monem Tawfik Mohamed
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: While titanium-reinforced expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (Ti-ePTFE) represents the most widely used nonresorbable barrier for large alveolar defects in guided bone regeneration (GBR), custom-designed zirconia membranes present a viable alternative.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of custom-made zirconia membranes versus Ti-ePTFE membranes in maxillary alveolar ridge augmentation.
STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, SAMPLE: This was a, parallel-group, single-blind randomized controlled trial conducted at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Egypt. The study included subjects with missing maxillary teeth and vertical (≤8 mm) or horizontal (≤6 mm) alveolar defects, while it excluded active periodontal disease, uncontrolled systemic disease, pregnancy, bisphosphonate therapy, and heavy smoking.
PREDICTOR VARIABLE: The predictor variable was reconstructive technique (membrane material). Subjects were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the Zirconia group or the Ti-ePTFE group using computer-generated permuted-block randomization.
MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLE(S): Outcome variables were clinical (wound dehiscence, membrane exposure, and infection, evaluated monthly) and radiographic (net volumetric bone gain [mm3] and linear gain [vertical and horizontal, mm]) assessed by cone-beam computed tomography superimposition at 6 months.
COVARIATES: The covariates were age, sex, baseline defect dimensions, and implant site distribution.
ANALYSES: Statistical analysis used independent and paired t-tests for continuous variables; χ2 or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, with the level of statistical significance set at P < .05.
RESULTS: Twenty-four subjects were randomized and analyzed using an intention-to-treat approach (mean age 34.00 ± 9.98 years; 15 [62.5%] females, 9 [37.5%] males). Two (8.3%) subjects were lost to follow-up (early dehiscence and infection). Net volumetric gain was 109.75 ± 39.66 mm3 (Zirconia) versus 82.60 ± 25.15 mm3 (Ti-ePTFE), P = .06. Net vertical gain was 2.10 ± 0.72 mm versus 2.72 ± 0.57 mm (P = .02). The mean horizontal gain was 3.08 ± 0.56 mm versus 3.34 ± 1.07 mm (P = .5). Wound dehiscence occurred in 2 (16.7%) subjects per cohort.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Custom-made zirconia membranes and Ti-ePTFE membranes are viable, precise, and efficient rigid barriers for GBR. Multicenter trials with longer follow-up is warranted.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of custom-made zirconia membranes versus Ti-ePTFE membranes in maxillary alveolar ridge augmentation.
STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, SAMPLE: This was a, parallel-group, single-blind randomized controlled trial conducted at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Egypt. The study included subjects with missing maxillary teeth and vertical (≤8 mm) or horizontal (≤6 mm) alveolar defects, while it excluded active periodontal disease, uncontrolled systemic disease, pregnancy, bisphosphonate therapy, and heavy smoking.
PREDICTOR VARIABLE: The predictor variable was reconstructive technique (membrane material). Subjects were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the Zirconia group or the Ti-ePTFE group using computer-generated permuted-block randomization.
MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLE(S): Outcome variables were clinical (wound dehiscence, membrane exposure, and infection, evaluated monthly) and radiographic (net volumetric bone gain [mm3] and linear gain [vertical and horizontal, mm]) assessed by cone-beam computed tomography superimposition at 6 months.
COVARIATES: The covariates were age, sex, baseline defect dimensions, and implant site distribution.
ANALYSES: Statistical analysis used independent and paired t-tests for continuous variables; χ2 or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, with the level of statistical significance set at P < .05.
RESULTS: Twenty-four subjects were randomized and analyzed using an intention-to-treat approach (mean age 34.00 ± 9.98 years; 15 [62.5%] females, 9 [37.5%] males). Two (8.3%) subjects were lost to follow-up (early dehiscence and infection). Net volumetric gain was 109.75 ± 39.66 mm3 (Zirconia) versus 82.60 ± 25.15 mm3 (Ti-ePTFE), P = .06. Net vertical gain was 2.10 ± 0.72 mm versus 2.72 ± 0.57 mm (P = .02). The mean horizontal gain was 3.08 ± 0.56 mm versus 3.34 ± 1.07 mm (P = .5). Wound dehiscence occurred in 2 (16.7%) subjects per cohort.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Custom-made zirconia membranes and Ti-ePTFE membranes are viable, precise, and efficient rigid barriers for GBR. Multicenter trials with longer follow-up is warranted.