Evidence Hub

Prospective Clinical Evaluation of Customized Titanium Occlusive Barriers with Window Modification for Guided Bone Regeneration: Radiographic and Histological Outcomes

Leiva-Gea L, Lendínez-Jurado A, Sánchez-Palomino P, Delgado-Ramos B, Corte-Torres MD, López-De La Torre C, Leiva-Gea I, Leiva-Gea A

Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland), 2026

13 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

This study aimed to quantify horizontal and vertical bone gain using superimposition of preoperative and postoperative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in severe alveolar ridge defects treated with a modified guided bone regeneration (GBR) technique based on customized titanium occlusive barriers with a window design, combined with autologous blood clot and β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP). In this prospective case series, 13 patients (28 defects) were treated. Customized titanium barriers were digitally designed based on CBCT data and manufactured by laser sintering. The barriers were fixed over the defects and filled with a mixture of an autologous blood clot and β-TCP, providing an osteoconductive scaffold within a stable regenerative compartment. A standardized window-based follow-up protocol was applied during healing, including irrigation and controlled deepithelialization. Primary outcomes were horizontal and vertical bone gain, assessed by pre- and postoperative CBCT superimposition. Histological evaluation was performed at the time of implant placement. After 8 months, significant bone gain was observed, with a mean horizontal gain of 4.50 ± 2.02 mm and a mean vertical gain of 4.40 ± 2.82 mm (p < 0.0001), confirmed by linear mixed-effects models and patient-level sensitivity analyses (p < 0.001). Histological analysis revealed well-vascularized newly formed bone with active osteoblasts and no inflammatory response. Keratinized gingiva formation was observed at all…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 13 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free