PetCaseFinder

Peer-reviewed veterinary case report

How pseudo-periosteum affects bone and tissue healing with titanium

By Park SH et al.·2026·Department of Periodontology, South Korea·View original on Europe PMC

PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →

Original publication title: Effect of pseudo-periosteum on hard and soft tissue regeneration following lateral bone augmentation using a titanium mesh: an experimental <i>in vivo</i> study.

Species:
dog

Plain-English summary

In this study, researchers looked at how well different methods of bone augmentation worked in dogs with jawbone defects. They used a titanium mesh to help with the healing process and compared several treatment options over 16 weeks. They found that all the implants successfully integrated with the bone, and while one method using a bone substitute showed better results than no treatment at all, there were no major differences among the other methods. The formation of a pseudo-periosteum (a layer that can form during healing) did not seem to affect the healing of the bone or surrounding tissues. Overall, the treatment methods were effective, and the presence of the pseudo-periosteum did not negatively impact the results.

Abstract

<h4>Purpose</h4>The aims of this study were 1) to evaluate the 16-week bone augmentation outcomes using a titanium mesh (TM), including an 8-week transmucosal healing period following TM removal, and 2) to investigate the impact of pseudo-periosteum formation on regenerative outcomes.<h4>Methods</h4>Atrophic alveolar ridge defects were induced in 6 canine mandibles, and 5 peri-implant defects were created in each hemi-mandible. Bone augmentation was attempted using the following randomly allocated modalities: 1) Control: no treatment; 2) TM group: blood clot covered by TM; 3) TM + bone substitute (BS) group: synthetic BS covered by TM; 4) TM + collagen membrane (CM) group: blood clot covered by TM and CM; and 5) TM + BS + CM group: BS covered by TM and CM. TMs were removed after 8 weeks, followed by abutment connection and an additional 8-week healing period. After sacrifice, histomorphometric analyses of hard and soft tissues were conducted.<h4>Results</h4>Regardless of early TM exposure (5/30), all implants achieved successful osseointegration and demonstrated comparable bone regeneration outcomes. No significant differences in horizontal or vertical bone gain were observed among the groups, whereas superiority of the TM + BS group over the control group showed a higher augmented bone percentage (<i>P</i>=0.021). The thickness of the pseudo-periosteum was not associated with hard or soft tissue regeneration outcomes.<h4>Conclusions</h4>TM removal after 8 weeks did not significantly affect the histologic outcomes of lateral bone augmentation performed with simultaneous implant placement. The presence of a pseudo-periosteum did not adversely influence either hard or soft tissue regenerative outcomes.

Find similar cases for your pet

PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.

Search related cases →

Original publication on Europe PMC: https://europepmc.org/article/MED/41968712