Mario Roccuzzo Autogenous bone graft alone or

Guglielmo Ramieri
Marco Bunino
associated with titanium mesh for
Sid Berrone vertical alveolar ridge augmentation:
a controlled clinical trial

Authors’ affiliations: Key words: autogenous bone graft, bone augmentation, bone resorption, dental implants,
Mario Roccuzzo, Guglielmo Ramieri, Sid Berrone,
ridge augmentation, titanium mesh
Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, University of
Torino, Torino, Italy
Marco Bunino, Private Practice, Pinerolo, Italy Abstract
Correspondence to: Objectives: The aim of this controlled clinical trial is to evaluate alveolar ridge
Dr Mario Roccuzzo augmentation using an autogenous onlay bone graft alone or associated with a titanium
Corso Tassoni, 14
mesh (Ti-Mesh).
10143 Torino
Italy Material and methods: A group of 23 partially edentulous patients, presenting the need
Tel.: þ 39 011 771 47 32 for vertical bone augmentation of at least 4 mm, were treated before implant placement.
Fax: þ 39 011 771 47 32
e-mail: mroccuzzo@iol.it Surgical procedure was performed by the same operator and was identical at 12 test (bone
graft þ Ti-Mesh) and 12 control (bone graft alone) sites. During the first surgery, an
autogenous bone graft was harvested from the mandibular ramus and secured by means of
titanium screws. Particulate bone was added. In patients assigned to the test group only, a
Ti-Mesh was used to stabilize and protect the graft.
Results: No major complications were recorded at recipient or donor sites. After a mean
interval of 4.6 (SD 0.7) months, the mean vertical augmentation obtained was 5 mm (range
4–7 mm) for the test group and 3.4 mm (range 3–6 mm) for the control. The sites with Ti-
Mesh coverage underwent bone resorption of 13.5%, while the sites with no coverage
showed a corresponding value of 34.5%. The differences between the two groups were
statistically significant. Implants were placed at all grafted sites.
Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that an onlay osseous graft protected by a Ti-
Mesh demonstrated significantly less bone resorption when compared with an onlay bone
graft alone. This benefit was reduced in case of short-term mesh exposure, with limited
drawbacks.

Vertical regeneration of resorbed alveolar used with varying degrees of expected suc-
ridges is still a challenging surgical proce- cess. One of the major challenges, how-
dure, especially in case of extensive bone ever, is to minimize the resorption of the
atrophy. Several augmentation techniques grafted bone.
have been proposed, even in cases with In order to do so, some authors (Buser et
Date:
Accepted 13 March 2006 limited bone support and inadequate nour- al. 1996; Tinti & Parma Benfenati 1998;
To cite this article:
ishment. If implant stability or appropriate Simion et al. 2004) have presented aug-
Roccuzzo M, Ramieri G, Bunino M, Berrone S. positioning cannot be achieved, ridge aug- mentation procedures in conjunction with
Autogenous bone graft alone or associated with titanium
mesh for vertical alveolar ridge augmentation: a mentation must be performed before im- a non-resorbable barrier membrane, while
controlled clinical trial. plantation. Under these circumstances, others (Chiapasco et al. 1999; Zeiter et al.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 18, 2007; 286–294
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01301.x various methods of bone grafting can be 2000; Cordaro et al. 2002; Capelli 2003;

286 c 2007 Blackwell Munksgaard

 Roccuzzo et al . Bone augmentation with or without titanium mesh

Schwartz-Arad & Levin 2005) have pre- therapy, before entering the surgical proce- performed by coin toss. The complete de-
ferred the use of bone blocks without dures, all patients demonstrated an ade- scription of the clinical procedures can be
membranes. quate plaque control. The patients agreed found in Roccuzzo et al. (2004). Briefly,
Antoun et al. (2001) compared two tech- to participate in this study and gave their following local anesthesia, a midcrestal
niques of bone augmentation with an onlay informed consent, in accordance with the incision was made, maximizing kerati-
graft alone or associated with a membrane Helsinki Declaration on human experi- nized mucosa on each side of the incision,
and concluded that the membrane group mentation. in a mesio-distal direction. Oblique releas-
experienced significantly less resorption ing incisions were made and full-thickness
than the graft-alone group. flaps were elevated to expose the bone. The
A recent study (Roccuzzo et al. 2004) Surgical procedure flaps were elevated on the palatal/lingual
presented a surgical protocol for vertical All surgeries were performed under local and buccal aspect of the alveolar ridge and
ridge augmentation in the maxilla and anesthesia, by the same operator (M. R.), sutures were used for retraction. All fibrous
mandible using autogenous bone graft pro- and were identical at test and control sites. tissue was removed, and perforations into
tected by a titanium mesh (Ti-Mesh), be- Premedication with oral diazepam 0.2 mg/ the marrow space were produced by means
fore implant placement. Data illustrated a kg was given, when patient requested it, of small surgical burs to facilitate vascular-
s
4.8 mm (range 4–7 mm) mean vertical while 1 g of Augmentin (GlaxoSmithk- ization of the graft.
bone augmentation reachable by means of line, S.p.A., Verona, Italy) was prescribed Harvesting was performed from the ra-
this technique. The rationale of using a Ti- 1 h prior to surgery. Randomization was mus and angle of the mandible as described
Mesh was to contain and stabilize the graft,
allowing maximum bone regeneration and
minimizing overall loss of bone volume.
The advocated advantage of Ti-Mesh, how-
ever, could not be demonstrated as a nega-
tive control was not included in the
preliminary research.
The aim of this controlled clinical trial
study was to evaluate the reliability of
Ti-Mesh in the prevention or limitation
of bone resorption following grafting proce-
dures in vertical defects.

Material and methods

Patient selection
Twenty-three (seven males and 16 females,
mean age 48.6) healthy subjects providing
24 sites were included in the study. The Fig. 1. Clinical view of vertical ridge defect, control treatment patient (control site).
patients were selected from those seeking
implant rehabilitation and presenting, at
preliminary visit with an orthopantomo-
graphy, an insufficient corono-apical
height of at least a portion of the alveolar
process. The edentulous area in the maxilla
or in the mandible, to be replaced with a
fixed partial denture or a single crown,
corresponded to a Cawood & Howell’s
Class IV, V or VI (Cawood & Howell
1988). The need for vertical augmentation
of at least 4 mm was considered the condi-
tion required to be a part of this study.
All patients were healthy, with no sys-
temic contraindication to intraoral surgery
and implant placement. Following selec-
tion, they received proper oral hygiene
instructions and, when necessary, scaling
and root planing. At the end of the initial Fig. 2. The bone graft is secured by means of long titanium screws (control site).

c 2007 Blackwell Munksgaard

287 | Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 18, 2007 / 286–294
Roccuzzo et al . Bone augmentation with or without titanium mesh

by Misch (1997, 2000). Each block was

secured by means of one or more 1.5 mm
titanium screws (Institut Straumann AG,
Waldenburg, Switzerland). The screws used
were always long enough to traverse the
residual alveolar process and keep the block
firmly attached (Bahat & Fontanessi
2001c). Additional bone was harvested
from and around the donor sites to increase
the volume until the desired height and to
create a regular morphology (Figs 1–3).
In patients assigned to the test group
only, a 0.2-mm-thick Ti-Mesh (Institut
Straumann AG) was used to stabilize and
protect the graft as described previously
(Roccuzzo et al. 2004). Each mesh was
selected, trimmed and adjusted to the in-
dividual anatomy to protect the bone block Fig. 3. Particulated bone is added to increase the volume both in height and in width (control site).
and maintain the particulate bone in situ.
Great care was taken to secure the Ti-
Mesh to the residual ridge by means of as
many fixation screws as necessary in order
to reduce the micro-movements to the
minimum (Figs 7 & 8).
Periosteal horizontal incisions were
made in order to extend the flap, as far as
coronally needed, over the mesh. Horizon-
tal mattress sutures were used to obtain
tension-free closure of soft tissues and
minute single-loop sutures were made to
seal the incision line perfectly.
Data on patients, recipient sites, vertical
component of the defect and complications
after first surgery are reported in Table 1.

Post-surgical care Fig. 4. Re-entry at 5 months after first surgery, fixation screws in place (control site).
Immediately after surgery, the patients
applied ice packs onto the treated area and
it was recommended that they be kept in
place for at least 4 h. Patients were also
advised to discontinue tooth brushing and
to avoid trauma in the site of surgery for the
first 3 weeks. They were instructed to take
s
1 g of Augmentin (GlaxoSmithkline,
S.p.A., Verona, Italy) twice a day for 6
days and to use 0.2% chlorexidine diglu-
s
conate (Corsodyl , GlaxoSmithkline) rinse
1 min three times a day for the same period
of time, starting the day after surgery. They
were seen at 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 12 weeks, to
monitor their healing. If necessary, a pro-
fessional supragingival prophylaxis was
performed. Sutures were removed after 2
weeks. A removable prosthesis was never
allowed, during healing, to avoid transmu-
cosal pressure on the operated area. Fig. 5. Significant bone resorption is evident after screws’ removal (control site).

288 | Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 18, 2007 / 286–294 c 2007 Blackwell Munksgaard


 Roccuzzo et al . Bone augmentation with or without titanium mesh

Chicago, IL, USA), and rounded off to the

nearest millimeter (Cordaro et al. 2002;
Artzi et al. 2003; Roccuzzo et al. 2004).
The cementoenamel junction of the adja-
cent tooth was used as a fixed reference
point. One linear measurement was taken
in each patient at the location where clin-
ical evaluation revealed the maximum
bone deficiency (Proussaefs et al. 2002a).
In addition, the distance between the site
of measurement and the root surface of the
nearest tooth was recorded to ensure that
measurement, at the time of second sur-
gery for implant placement, could be re-
peated, in the same location (Buser et al.
1996).
A paired-sample t-test was used to test
Fig. 6. Abutment connection 10 weeks after implant placement (control site). the significance of differences between the
two treatments. In cases where the require-
ments for parametric testing were not met,
Table 1. Data on patients, recipient sites, vertical component of the defect an analysis method was used that was
Patient Age Gender Treatment Recipient site Vertical defect (mm) robust to distributional assumptions. Tests
were performed two tailed and at the 5%
1. 55 F Control 4.5 4.6 5
2. 60 F Control 3.4 3.5 3.6 5 significance level.
3. 68 F Test 1.4 1.5 1.6 6
4. 55 F Test 4.5 4.6 4.7 4 Results
5. 50 M Control 4.5 4.6 7
6. 40 F Test 4.5 4.6 4
7. 34 M Test 1.3 8 At first surgery, the vertical bone augmen-
8. 43 F Control 4.5 4.6 4 tation was 5.7  1.5 mm (range 4–8 mm)
9. 55 M Test 2.4 2.5 2.6 5 for the test group and 5.5  1.2 mm (range
10. 51 F Test 4.5 4.6 4.7 4
4–8 mm) for the control.
11. 46 F Test 1.1 1.2 9
12. 55 M Control 1.3 9 In all patients, healing proceeded with
13. 42 F Control 1.1 1.2 2.1 2.2 6 neither major complications nor dropouts
14. 50 F Test 4.6 4.7 4 during this first period of observation. Post-
Control 3.5 3.6 5
operative discomforts included swelling,
15. 40 F Control 3.5 5
16. 37 M Test 1.4 1.5 9 hematoma and pain, and did not require
17. 58 F Test 1.6 1.7 7 specific additional treatment. Temporary
18. 20 F Control 3.5 5 paresthesia was observed in one case,
19. 47 M Control 4.2 4.3 7
20. 50 M Test 1.5 1.6 1.7 6
with no incidence of anesthesia or dys-
21. 55 F Control 3.4 3.5 3.6 6 esthesia. On the test sites, exposure of
22. 58 F Test 2.6 2.7 7 the Ti-Mesh was noticed in four of the 12
23. 48 F Control 4.6 4.7 6 patients (Fig 9). In these cases, weekly
Mean 48.6 6.1 5.8
SD 10.2 1.9 1.3 examinations were carried out. Patients
were instructed to apply 1% chlorhexidine
s
gel twice a day (Corsodyl Dental Gel,
GlaxoSmithkline). In one of these four
Re-entry onto the area in order to obtain thicker cases, closure of the dehiscence occurred
After 4–6 months, a second surgery was and wider marginal tissues around the im- spontaneously after a few weeks. In an-
performed at the recipient site. After the plants, with no muscular tensions around other case, soft tissue dehiscence was ex-
removal of titanium screws and mesh, if their necks. tensive and required early removal of the
present, solid screw SLA implants were mesh, 5 weeks after first surgery. At re-
placed, according to the manufacturer’s Clinical measurements entry, grafts appeared well incorporated
instructions (Institut Straumann AG) in a At the time of first surgery, after flap into native bone in all 12 cases. The pre-
non-submerged fashion (Figs 4–6 & 10–12). reflection and removal of all fibrous tissue, sence of a slightly insufficient volume was
Whenever the vestibule was very much the dimension of the vertical alveolar ridge found in two patients. In these cases,
reduced in height, a connective tissue graft, defect was measured by means of a perio- supplementary bone was added at the
harvested from the palate, was sutured dontal probe (XP23/UNC 15, Hu-Friedy, time of implant placement.

c 2007 Blackwell Munksgaard

289 | Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 18, 2007 / 286–294
Roccuzzo et al . Bone augmentation with or without titanium mesh

On the control sites, grafts appeared well

maintained and incorporated into native
bone in six of the 12 cases. In particular,
at re-entry, grafts in three patients revealed
discoloration. The outer necrotic portion
was removed with a bur and additional
bone was inserted. In the other two cases,
a significant graft resoprtion, i.e.  50%,
was recorded. Finally, during osteotomy
preparation for implant placement in one
patient, the block graft became completely
dislodged and was removed.
The overall mean vertical augmenta-
tion obtained was 4.8  1.5 mm (range
4–7 mm) for the test group and 3.6
 1.4 mm (range 3–6 mm) for the control.
The sites with Ti-Mesh coverage under-
Fig. 7. Surgical exposure of the vertical bone defect, test treatment patient (test site). went bone resorption of 13.5%, while the
sites with no coverage showed a corre-
sponding value of 34.5%. The differences
between the two groups were statistically
significant.
Data regarding healing time, augmenta-
tion, bone resorption and complications are
listed respectively, in Tables 2 and 3.

Discussion

The aim of this paper was to evaluate a

technique for vertical ridge augmentation
in the maxilla and mandible using auto-
genous onlay bone graft alone or associated
with a Ti-Mesh in a group of partially
edentulous patients.
The results showed significantly less
Fig. 8. Ti-Mesh is fixed in order to contain and to protect the bone graft (test site). bone resorption when the graft was pro-
tected with the Ti-Mesh than with a bone
graft alone. The most likely hypothesis lies
in its protective effect during healing time.
This is accordance with a previous similar
controlled study with non-resorbable
membranes (Antoun et al. 2001).
The easy handling of the Ti-Mesh al-
lowed application for three-dimensional
reconstruction of large bony defects even
in the case of significant vertical deficits.
The advantages of Ti-Mesh over e-PTFE
membranes are, however, especially evi-
dent in case of soft tissue dehiscence during
healing. Non-resorbable membrane bar-
riers, when exposed, result in infection
that can jeopardize the results (Buser et
al. 1996). On the contrary, exposure of
the Ti-Mesh did not appear to affect the
final outcome as the ridge was augmented
Fig. 9. Soft tissue dehiscence and mesh exposure 2 months after surgery (test site). to receive the implants needed in the

290 | Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 18, 2007 / 286–294 c 2007 Blackwell Munksgaard


 Roccuzzo et al . Bone augmentation with or without titanium mesh

desired position. This is in accordance with

von Arx et al. (1996), Bahat & Fontanessi
(2001c), Proussaefs et al. (2003), and
Roccuzzo et al. (2004).
In the current study, the Ti-Mesh was
removed at the time of implant placement
in all cases except in one patient who
presented an extensive mesh exposure.
The presence of a thin layer of soft tissue
around the mesh did not facilitate its re-
moval in a separate approach as suggested
by Proussaefs et al. (2003). The positive
results of this protocol suggest the clinical
use of Ti-Mesh in spite of the slight in-
crease of surgical time and the cost of the
procedure.
Exposure of the block graft, not pro-
Fig. 10. At re-entry, after mesh removal, significant vertical bone gain is evident (test site). tected, during healing as recently described
by Capelli (2003), was never observed in
this group of patients. Nevertheless, the
presence of a graft insufficiently remodeled
and revascularized was found, at re-entry,
in four control patients (Fig. 2). The reason
for this is not fully understood. Similar
findings were described by Buser et al.
(2002) and could be caused by an insuffi-
cient contact among the block grafts and
the recipient sites or could be connected to
the extremely cortical nature of the blocks
themselves. In all cases, the grafts were
harvested from the most posterior region of
the mandible where the cancellous compo-
nent is almost completely absent. Grafts
from the chin, which could offer more
cancellous bone to facilitate revasculariza-
tion, was reported to present discomfort for
Fig. 11. Fixture placement according to the principle of prosthetic-driven implantology (test site). the patients by Nkenke et al. (2001) and
Raghoebar et al. (2001). In contrast, the
ramus donor site resulted in fewer compli-
cations in accordance with Misch (1997,
2000), Nkenke et al. (2002), and Clavero &
Lundgren (2003). Specifically, only one
patient from this group presented tempor-
ary paraesthesia of lip area.
Late soft tissue dehiscence and conse-
quent bone graft exposure was observed in
four patients, several weeks after implant
placement. The reason for this fact, never
described before in the literature to the best
of our knowledge, is far from being under-
stood. In all these cases, however, the
exposed bone was reduced by means of a
bur and was covered by a thick connective
tissue graft to promote secondary healing
of the mucosa. The preliminary results of
this empirical protocol to solve the problem
Fig. 12. Abutment connection 12 weeks after implant placement (test site). tentatively seem positive as none of the

c 2007 Blackwell Munksgaard

291 | Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 18, 2007 / 286–294
Roccuzzo et al . Bone augmentation with or without titanium mesh

Table 2. Healing time, augmentation, bone resorption and complications at test sites
Patient Healing Vertical Complications Graft Adjunctive Complications
time augmentation before implant resorption therapy after implant
(months) (mm) placement (mm) placement
3. 5 6 – 1 – –
4. 4.5 4 – 0 CTG –
6. 5 4 – 0 CTG –
7. 4 8 Minimal mesh exposure 1 CTG –
9. 4 5 – 1 Additional bone –
10. 6 4 Estensive mesh exposure 2 Additional bone –
11. 3.5 8 – 1 – –
14. 4 4 – 0 CTG Soft-tissue dehiscence
16. 4.5 7 Minimal mesh exposure 0 – –
17. 5 6 – 1 – –
20. 4 6 – 2 – –
22. 5.5 6 Partial mesh exposure 2 – –
Mean 4.6 5.7 0.9
SD 0.7 1.5 0.8

Table 3. Healing time, augmentation, bone resorption and complications at control sites
Patient Healing Vertical Complications Graft Adjunctive Complications
time augmentation before implant resorption therapy after implant
(months) (mm) placement (mm) placement
1. 5 5 Incomplete integration of graft 2 Additional bone Soft-tissue dehiscence
2. 4 4 – 0 CTG –
5. 4 6 Incomplete integration of graft 1 CTG Soft-tissue dehiscence
and graft resorption
8. 5.5 4 – 1 – –
12. 4.5 8 – 2 – –
13. 5 6 – 2 – –
14. 4 5 Graft mobilization at N/A Additional bone þ CTG –
implant placement
15. 4 4 Temporary paresthesia 1 – –
18. 5 5 Significant graft resorption 4 Additional bone Small sequestra expelled
19. 4 7 2 – –
21. 5 6 Incomplete integration of graft 3 Additional bone –
23. 6 6 Significant graft resorption 3 Additional bone þ CTG –
Mean 4.7 5.5 1.9
SD 0.7 1.2 1.1

patients presented further complications in varies considerably and with several mod- after bone grafting. These results are simi-
the area. ifications from one side to another contig- lar to those found in the test group of this
Horizontal augmentation was also uous one. Moreover, in our series, the research. Further comparative studies
achieved whenever clinically necessary, variation in soft tissue was even larger in should be encouraged to better understand
but it was not calculated in order to sim- those cases where a connective tissue graft the pros and cons of the respective techni-
plify clinical measurements. A precise was added to benefit the site. ques.
assessment of the amount of bone augmen- With regard to patients’ compliance, it is The results of this clinical investigation
tation obtained remains a demanding task important to note that oral hygiene condi- suggest that vertical ridge augmentation
due to the evident difficulties in measur- tions were carefully evaluated before and with Ti-Mesh and autogenous bone is pre-
ing. A CT scan performed after surgery, as after surgeries and probably account for the dictable and does not go through major
suggested by Antoun et al. (2001), could low levels of complications regarding pos- resorption. Implants were placed at all
make the measurement of the bone gain sible infections, even in cases of mesh grafted sites. It is clear, however, that
more reliable. It was, however, considered exposures. both procedures are not free from compli-
unnecessary and therefore in contrast with Recently, two studies (Maiorana et al. cations. Aside from technical problems,
the ethical recommendation of the direc- 2005; Proussaefs & Lozada 2005) have biological considerations, i.e., the vascular-
tive of the council of the European Com- proposed the use of inorganic bovine mate- ization of the bone transplants, the quality
munities about the responsible use of rial to reduce autogenous bone graft of bone blocks, the blood supply to soft
ionizing radiation in medicine. resorption. In particular, Proussaefs & tissue, etc, should be further investigated.
The precision of a method as described Lozada (2005) presented an average of These considerations, along with the re-
by Proussaefs et al. (2002b) is questionable 4.75  1.29 mm of vertical ridge augmen- sults from this study, favor the use of a
as the mucous thickness and morphology tation, with 17.4% resorption 4–6 months delayed approach when using autogenous

292 | Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 18, 2007 / 286–294 c 2007 Blackwell Munksgaard


 Roccuzzo et al . Bone augmentation with or without titanium mesh

bone grafts and titanium implants for re- More years of observation are, however,
construction of the severely atrophied max- necessary (Weber et al. 1997) to verify the
illa, in accordance with Buser et al. (1996), stability of augmention over a long period
Triplett & Schow (1996), Chiapasco et al. of time and to compare the rate of resorp-
(1999), Bahat & Fontanessi (2001a, 2001b) tion of peri-implantal bone with that ob-
and Cordaro et al. (2002). tained by means of similar or other
No surgical techniques are currently techniques (von Arx et al. 1998; Simion
available to regain predictably lost crest et al. 2001, 2004; Chiapasco et al. 2004).
height in esthetic areas (Buser et al.
2004). One of the greatest clinical advan-
tages of the proposed procedure is the lack
of major complications if soft tissue dehis-
cence and subsequent mesh exposures do
occur. This method, therefore, can be re-
presented as an important reference for-
ward in the definition of ideal
augmentation protocols, especially in clin-
ical situations with reduced vertical bone
on adjacent teeth.

References

Antoun, H., Sitbon, J.M., Martinez, H. & Missika, Capelli, M. (2003) Autogenous bone graft from Nkenke, E., Radespiel-Troger, M., Wiltfang, J.,
P. (2001) A prospective randomized study com- mandibular ramus: a technique for bone augmen- Schultze-Mosgau, S., Winkler, G. & Neukam,
paring two technique of bone augmentation: onlay tation. International Journal of Periodontics and F.W. (2002) Morbidity of harvesting of retromolar
graft alone or associated with a membrane. Clin- Restorative Dentistry 23: 277–285. bone grafts: a prospective study. Clinical Oral
ical Oral Implants Research 12: 632–639. Cawood, J.I. & Howell, R.A. (1988) A classification Implants Research 13: 514–521.
Artzi, Z., Dayan, D., Alpern, Y. & Nemcovsky, of the edentulous jaws. International Journal of Nkenke, E., Schultze-Mosgau, S., Radespiel-Tröger,
C.E. (2003) Vertical ridge augmentation using Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 17: 232–236. M., Kloss, F. & Neukam, F.W. (2001) Morbidity
xenogenic material supported by a configured Chiapasco, M., Abati, S., Romeo, E. & Vogel, G. of harvesting of chin grafts: a prospective study.
titanium mesh: clinicohistopathologic and histo- (1999) Clinical outcome of autogenous bone Clinical Oral Implants Research 12: 495–502.
chemical study. International Journal of Oral & blocks or guided bone regeneration with e-PTFE Proussaefs, P. & Lozada, J. (2005) The use of
Maxillofacial Implants 18: 440–446. membranes for the reconstruction of narrow eden- intraorally harvested autogenous bone grafts for
Bahat, O. & Fontanessi, R.V. (2001a) Efficacy of tulous ridges. Clinical Oral Implants Research vertical alveolar ridge augmentation: a human
implant placement after bone grafting for three- 10: 278–288. study. International Journal of Periodontics and
dimensional reconstruction of the posterior jaw. Chiapasco, M., Romeo, E., Casentini, P. & Rimon- Restorative Dentistry 25: 351–363.
International Journal of Periodontics and dini, L. (2004) Alveolar distraction osteogenesis Proussaefs, P., Lozada, J., Kleinman, A. & Rohrer,
Restorative Dentistry 21: 221–231. vs. vertical guided bone regeneration for the cor- M.D. (2002a) The use of ramus autogenous block
Bahat, O. & Fontanessi, R.V. (2001b) Implant rection of vertically deficient edentulous ridges: a grafts for vertical alveolar ridge augmentation and
placement in three-dimensional grafts in the ante- 1–3 year prospective study on humans. Clinical implant placement: a pilot study. International
rior jaw. International Journal of Periodontics and Oral Implants Research 15: 82–95. Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 17:
Restorative Dentistry 21: 357–365. Clavero, J. & Lundgren, S. (2003) Ramus or chin 238–248.
Bahat, O. & Fontanessi, R.V. (2001c) Complica- grafts for maxillary sinus inlay and local onlay Proussaefs, P., Lozada, J., Kleinman, A., Rohrer,
tions of grafting in the atrophic edentulous or augmentation: comparison of donor site morbidity M.D. & McMillan, P.J. (2003) The use of tita-
partially edentulous jaw. International Journal and complications. Clinical Implant Dentistry 5: nium mesh in conjunction with autogenous
of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry 21: 154–166. bone graft and inorganic bovine bone mineral
487–495. Cordaro, L., Sarzi Amadè, D. & Cordaro, M. (2002) (Bio-Oss) for localized alveolar ridge augmenta-
Buser, D., Dula, K., Hirt, H.P. & Schenk, R. (1996) Clinical results of alveolar ridge augmentation tion: a human study. International Journal
Lateral ridge augmentation using autografts and with mandibular block bone grafts in partially of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry 23:
barrier membranes: a clinical study with 40 par- edentulous patients prior to implant placement. 185–195.
tially edentulous patients. International Journal Clinical Oral Implants Research 13: 103–111. Proussaefs, P., Valencia, G., Lozada, J. & Tatakis,
of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 54: 420–432. Maiorana, C., Beretta, M., Salina, S. & Santoro, F. D.N. (2002b) A method to assess the clinical
Buser, D., Ingimarsson, S., Dula, K., Lussi, A., Hirt, (2005) Reduction of autogenous bone graft by outcome of ridge augmentation procedures. Jour-
H.P. & Belser, U.C. (2002) Long-term stability of means of Bio-Oss coverage: a prospective study. nal of Periodontology 73: 302–306.
osseointegrated implants in augmented bone: a 5- International Journal of Periodontics and Re- Raghoebar, G.M., Louwerse, C., Kalk, W.W.I. &
year prospective study in partially edentulous storative Dentistry 25: 19–25. Vissink, A. (2001) Morbidity of chin harvest-
patients. International Journal of Periodontics Misch, C.M. (1997) Comparison of intraoral donor ing. Clinical Oral Implants Research 12:
and Restorative Dentistry 22: 108–117. sites for onlay grafting prior to implant placement. 503–507.
Buser, D., Martin, W. & Belser, U. (2004) Optimiz- International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Roccuzzo, M., Ramieri, G., Spada M, C., Bianchi,
ing esthetics for implant restorations in the ante- Implants 12: 767–776. S.D. & Berrone, S. (2004) Vertical alveolar ridge
rior maxilla: anatomic and surgical Misch, C.M. (2000) Use of the mandibular ramus as augmentation by means of a titanium mesh and
considerations. International Journal of Oral & a donor site for onlay bone grafting. Journal of autogenous bone grafts. Clinical Oral Implants
Maxillofacial Implants 19 (Suppl.): 43–61. Oral Implantology 26: 42–49. Research 15: 73–81.

c 2007 Blackwell Munksgaard

293 | Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 18, 2007 / 286–294
Roccuzzo et al . Bone augmentation with or without titanium mesh

Schwartz-Arad, D. & Levin, L. (2005) Intraoral vertical ridge augmentation. A retrospective study of dental implants. International Journal of Oral
autogenous block onlay bone grafting for extensive on 123 implants with 1–5 year follow-up. Clin- & Maxillofacial Implants 11: 387–394.
reconstruction of atrophic maxillary alveolar ical Oral Implants Research 12: 35–45. von Arx, T., Wallkamm, B. & Hardt, N. (1998)
ridges. Journal of Periodontology 76: 636–641. Tinti, C. & Parma Benfenati, S. (1998) Vertical ridge Localized ridge augmentation using a micro tita-
Simion, M., Fontana, F., Rasperini, G. & Maiorana, augmentation: surgical protocol and retrospective nium mesh: a report on 27 implants followed
C. (2004) Long-term evaluation of osseointegrated evaluation of 48 consecutively inserted implants. from 1 to 3 years after functional loading. Clinical
implants placed in sites augmented with sinus International Journal of Periodontics and Oral Implants Research 9: 123–130.
floor elevation associated with vertical ridge aug- Restorative Dentistry 18: 435–443. Weber, H.P., Fiorellini, J.P. & Jeffcoat, M.C. (1997)
mentation: a retrospective study on 38 consecu- Triplett, R.G. & Schow, S.R. (1996) Autologous Clinical trials on placement of implants in exist-
tive implants with 1–7 year follow-up. bone grafts and endosseous implants: complemen- ing bone. Annals of Periodontology 2: 315–328.
International Journal of Periodontics and tary techniques. International Journal of Oral and Zeiter, D.J., Ries, W.L. & Sanders, J.J. (2000) The
Restorative Dentistry 24: 208–221. Maxillofacial Surgery 54: 486–494. use of a bone block graft from the chin for alveolar
Simion, M., Jovanovic, S.A., Tinti, C. & Parma von Arx, T., Hardt, N. & Wallkamm, B. (1996) The ridge augmentation. International Journal of
Benfenati, S. (2001) Long-term evaluation of os- TIME technique: a new method for localized Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry 20:
seointegrated implants inserted at time or after alveolar ridge augmentation prior to placement 619–627.

294 | Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 18, 2007 / 286–294 c 2007 Blackwell Munksgaard