BACKGROUND: The aim of the present prospective case series study was to evaluate the implant and prosthetic survival rates, complications and marginal bone loss using ultra-fine titanium mesh membrane with simultaneous implant placement, to provide space maintenance mandatory for guided bone reconstruction of alveolar bone defects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: patients were recruited and treated at a private clinic in Rome, Italy, between March 2016 and October 2017. Self-tapping tapered implants were placed through a computer-guided template-assisted approach. Autogenous bone was placed alone over the exposed implant surface, then mixed with inorganic bovine bone material. Finally, the membrane was connected and shaped in order to securely enclose the graft area, and the healing cap was connected and screwed onto the height connector. Outcome measures were: implant and prosthetic failure, biological and mechanical complications, marginal and volumetric bone level changes, esthetic evaluation performed according to the pink aesthetic score (PES). RESULTS: in total, seven patients (five women, two men) with a mean age of 52.7 ± 20.3 years (range: 27-71) received 10 self-tapping tapered implants and simultaneous guided bone regeneration with ultra-fine titanium mesh membranes. No implants and no prostheses failed during the entire follow-up period. One slightly membrane exposure was observed one month after implant placement in one patient. The mean marginal bone loss (MBL) at implant loading was 0.13 ± 0.09 mm (95 % CI 0.08-0.19). At the 18-month follow-up examination, the mean MBL was 0.28 ± 0.33 mm (95 % CI 0.07-0.50) The difference was not statistically significant (0.15 ± 0.31; 95% CI 0.05-0.35; P = 0.1888). The mean horizontal alveolar ridge width was 3.72 ± 1.08 mm (95% CI 3.22-4.22 mm). At the II-stage surgery, the mean bone width was 8.79 ± 0.98 mm (95% CI 8.51-9.07 mm). The mean bone gain was 5.06 ± 1.13 mm (95% CI 4.68-5.44 mm; P = 0.000). The mean volume of the grafted bone calculated using the superimposition technique was 0.99 ± 0.38 CC (95% CI 0.75-1.23 CC). The mean PES at implant loading was 8.2 ± 0.8 mm (95 % CI 7.7-8.7). At the 18-month follow-up examination, the mean PES was 12.0 ± 0.7 mm (95 % CI 11.5-12.5) The difference was statistically significant (3.8 ± 0.4; 95 % CI 3.5-4.1; P = 0.0000); Conclusion: with the limitation of the present prospective study, the guided bone reconstruction using an ultra-fine titanium mesh membrane with simultaneous implant placement seems to provide good and stable results in implant/prosthesis success. Further research with a longer follow-up and a higher sample size are needed to confirm the results from this preliminary report.