Comparison between jaw bone augmentation by means of a stiff occlusive titanium membrane or an autologous hip graft: a retrospective clinical assessment

OBJECTIVES: Patients in need of bone augmentation procedures can be treated with a traditional hip graft or by neogenesis under a stiff occlusive titanium membrane, custom-fit on the basis of CT-scan data. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighteen patients treated by means of a hip graft (H) were compared with 11 patients using a full titanium membrane (M) for the rehabilitation of upper jaws. In the H group, 17 patients (62 implants) in the anterior region (Ha) and 14 patients (23 implants) in the posterior region (Hp) were included. In the M group, nine patients (30 implants) in the anterior region (Ma) and seven patients (16 implants) in the posterior region (Mp) were included. RESULTS: In group Ha, the CFR was 13.3% after 14 years compared with group Ma where the CFR was 17.4% after 9 years. In group Hp, the CFR was 22.8% after 16 years compared with group Mp where the CFR was 23.4% after 6 years. The marginal bone loss for group Ha after 20 years was 2.7 mm, for group Ma it was not even 1 mm after 9 years; for group Hp, it was 2.5 mm after 15 years compared with less than 1 mm after 3 years in group Mp. CONCLUSIONS: The success rate of alveolar ridge augmentation therapy is lower than in a classical approach. These augmentation procedures, however, show acceptable results. The titanium membrane augmentation leads to less marginal bone loss probably because neo-formed bone has a better chance to adapt its mineralization to occlusal forces encountered. This technique could offer improvement if membrane exposure can be avoided.status: publishe