Larger Vertical Ridge Augmentation: A Retrospective Multicenter Comparative Analysis of Seven Surgical Techniques
Andreas Pabst, Abdulmonem Alshihri, Philipp Becker, Amely Hartmann, Diana Heimes, Eleni Kapogianni, Frank Kloss, Keyvan Sagheb, Markus Troeltzsch, Jochen Tunkel, Christian Walter, Peer W. Kämmerer

TL;DR
This study compares seven techniques for vertical alveolar ridge augmentation, analyzing their effectiveness, complications, and costs.
Contribution
The study provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of seven vertical ARA techniques using real-world clinical data.
Findings
Iliac crest grafts achieved the highest bone gain but had the longest harvesting time and highest donor site morbidity.
Magnesium scaffolds showed the lowest graft resorption and no donor site morbidity.
CAD/CAM titanium mesh had a higher dehiscence rate compared to other techniques.
Abstract
Background: Vertical alveolar ridge augmentation (ARA) > 3 mm is associated with increased surgical complexity and higher complication rates. Despite the availability of various ARA techniques and graft materials, robust comparative clinical data remain limited. This retrospective multicenter study aimed to evaluate and compare surgical and patient-relevant outcomes across seven established vertical ARA techniques. Methods: This retrospective multicenter study included 70 cases of vertical ARA > 3 mm using seven different techniques (10 cases each): an iliac crest graft (ICG), intraoral autogenous bone block (IBB), allogeneic bone block (ABB), CAD/CAM ABB, CAD/CAM titanium mesh (CAD/CAM TM), magnesium scaffold (MS), and the allogeneic shell technique (ST). The outcome parameters included harvesting and insertion time, bone gain (vertical and horizontal, after a minimum of one year),…
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Click any figure to enlarge with its caption.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsFacial Rejuvenation and Surgery Techniques · Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes · Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
