Background: The partial edentulous posterior mandible is often a challenge area that requires a bone reconstructive surgery for implants placement.Purpose: This RCT was aimed to evaluate complications rate and vertical bone gain after Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR) with dense non‐resorbable d‐PTFE titanium‐reinforced membranes (Group A) versus titanium meshes covered by cross‐linked collagen membranes (Group B).Material and Methods: 40 partially edentulous patients with atrophic posterior mandible, were randomly divided into two study group: 20 patients were treated with one stage GBR by means of non‐resorbable d‐PTFE titanium‐reinforced membranes (Group A); and 20 patients, by means of titanium mesh covered by cross‐linked collagen membranes (Group B). All complications were recorded, distinguishing between “surgical” and “healing” and between “minor” or “major.”. Primary implants stability and vertical bone gain were also evaluated.Results: In the group A, surgical and healing complication rates were 5.0% and 15.0%, respectively. In the group B, surgical and healing complication rates were 15.8% and 21.1%, respectively. No significant differences between two study group were observed regarding complications rate implant stability and vertical bone gain.Conclusions: Both GBR approaches for the restoration of atrophic posterior mandible achieved similar results regarding complications, vertical bone gain and implant stability.

Objectives: The aim was to evaluate the role of resorbable membranes applied over customized titanium meshes related to soft tissue healing and bone regeneration after vertical/horizontal bone augmentation.Materials and Methods: Thirty patients with partial edentulism of the maxilla/mandible, with vertical/horizontal reabsorption of the alveolar bone, and needing implant‐supported restorations, were randomly divided into two groups: Group A was treated using only custom‐made meshes (Mesh‐) and Group B using custom‐made meshes with cross‐linked collagen membranes (Mesh+). Data collection included surgical/technical and healing complications, “pseudo‐periosteum” thickness, bone density, planned bone volume (PBV), regenerated bone volume (RBV), regeneration rate (RR), vertical bone gain (VBG), and implant survival in regenerated areas. Statistical analysis was performed between the two study groups using a significance level of α = .05.Results: Regarding the healing complications, the noninferiority analysis proved to be inconclusive, despite the better results of group Mesh+ (13%) compared to group Mesh‐ (33%): estimated value −1.13 CI‐95% from −0.44 to 0.17. Superiority approach confirmed the absence of significant differences (p = .39). RBV was 803.27 mm³ and 843.13 mm³, respectively, and higher RR was observed in group Mesh+ (82.3%) compared to Mesh‐ (74.3%), although this value did not reach a statistical significance (p = .44). All 30 patients completed the study, receiving 71 implants; 68 out of them were clinically stable and in function.Conclusion: The results showed that customized meshes alone do not appear to be inferior to customized meshes covered by cross‐linked collagen membranes in terms of healing complication rates and regeneration rates, although superior results were observed in group Mesh+compared to group Mesh‐ for all variables.