Comparison Of 3D-Pitm GBR And BRT In Aesthetic Zone

Aim or purpose: This study compares the clinical efficacy of 3D-printed individualized titanium mesh (3D-PITM) guided bone regeneration (GBR) and autogenous bone ring grafting technique (BRT) in reconstructing complex alveolar bone defects in the anterior maxilla. Materials and methods: A retrospective study (June 2018–January 2022) included 29 patients with single-tooth loss and complex anterior maxillary defects: 14 underwent 3D-PITM GBR, and 15 received BRT. Approved by the Ethics Committee. CBCT scans were analyzed at four intervals (preoperative, grafting day, 6–9 months post-surgery, and implantation) using Mimics Research® and Geomagic Wrap® for 3D bone model reconstruction, volumetric measurements, and horizontal/vertical bone gain quantification. Secondary outcomes included complications, Pink/White Esthetic Scores (PES/WES), patient satisfaction (Visual Analog Scale), and marginal bone loss (MBL). Non-parametric statistical analyses (Mann-Whitney U test, p<0.05) were performed using SPSS v26.0. Results: The 3D-PITM group showed significantly greater bone volume gain (382.25 mm³ vs. 288 mm³, p = 0.013), vertical bone height increase (2.26 mm vs. 0.14 mm, p = 0.021) than the BRT group, and horizontal augmentation (5.08 mm vs. 1.86 mm, p = 0.001). Complication rates were comparable, with minor mesh exposure in one 3D-PITM case. No significant differences were found in PES, WES, VAS, or MBL (p > 0.05) Conclusions: 3D-PITM GBR demonstrated superior bone augmentation outcomes compared to BRT in the aesthetic zone. Mesh exposure remains a concern, warranting larger controlled studies to validate long-term efficacy.