Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 5, 2025
Biological Compatibility Profile on Biomaterials for Bone Regeneration
Published on: November 16, 2018
A microcomputed tomography analysis of bone tissue after vertical ridge augmentation with non-resorbable membranes
Purpose:
Guided bone regeneration is a frequently used surgical procedure for hard tissue reconstruction when horizontal and or/vertical augmentation are needed. The treatment concept is based on the application of occlusive membranes like non-resorbable membranes or titanium mesh plus resorbable membranes. However, there are no studies comparing the microcomputed tomography results for bone obtained using these two procedures, and this was the purpose of the present study.
Materials And Methods:
A total of 40 patients with vertical posterior bone mandibular atrophy were randomly assigned to group A (guided bone regeneration with titanium-reinforced polytetrafluoroethylene membrane and simultaneous implant placement) or group B (guided bone regeneration with titanium mesh and collagen membrane and simultaneous implant placement). Tissue biopsy specimens were obtained from augmented sites after 9 months for microcomputed tomography analysis of volume of interest. Bone volume (BV/TV), biomaterial volume (MatV/TV), soft tissue volume (StV/TV), trabecular thickness (TbTh), trabecular number (TbN) and trabecular separation (TbSp) were measured. The correlation between regenerated bone and native bone was also evaluated. STATA software (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA) was utilised for statistical analysis (significance α = 0.05).
Results:
In group A, the values of BV/TV, MatV/TV and StV/TV in regenerated bone were 28.8%, 8.9% and 62.4%, respectively. In group B, the values of BV/TV, MatV/TV and StV/TV were 30.0%, 11.0% and 59.0%, respectively. No statistical differences were found between the two groups for any of the variables (P < 0.05). In both groups, considerable differences were noted between regenerated and native bone (P > 0.05), with a slight correlation between the microcomputed tomography parameters that suggests that native bone influences the quality of regenerated bone.
Conclusions:
Based on microcomputed tomography analysis, both surgical approaches facilitated the obtention of approximately 30% of newly formed bone with the same microarchitecture. Native bone influences the quality and microarchitecture of the obtained bone, irrespective of the technique used.
