Background: This review addressed the focused question of what is the predictability of vertical ridge augmentation techniques for patients, who were diagnosed with insufficient alveolar bone volume for the placement of dental implants. Material and Methods: A systematic online review of three main databases was performed between 1966 and 1 November 2007. Four groups of vertical bone augmentation techniques have been identified and evaluated: (1) guided bone regeneration, (2) distraction osteogenesis, (3) onlay bone grafting, and (4) an array of different techniques. Data extraction was based on the following outcomes: (a) success and failure rate of the procedure (vertical bone gain/loss), (b) complication rate of the procedure, and (c) implant survival, success and failure rate. Results: The initial search identified 189 papers from the electronic database. The review produced seven papers for GBR, 13 reporting distraction osteogenesis, five for onlay bone grafting and three describing different techniques. Conclusions: For the concept of vertical ridge augmentation to enable dental implant placement, there are clinical and histological data supporting its potential use. Given the confined number of investigators using these techniques and the low number of patient treatments reported in the literature, the generalizability of this approach is limited at this time.

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate retrospectively, after 1 to 5 years of prosthetic loading, 123 implants consecutively inserted at the time of vertical ridge augmentation in 4 clinics. At the time of the implant surgery, 3 different techniques were used: the implants were allowed to protrude 2 to 7 mm from the bone level and a titanium reinforced expanded-polytetrafluoroethylene (e-PTFE) membrane was positioned to protect either the blood clot (Group A, 6 patients), or an allograft (Group B, 11 patients), or an autograft (Group C, 32 patients). The annual implant evaluation was carried out according to a standard protocol utilized for long term studies with endosseous implants inserted in non-regenerated bone. Only 1 implant failed immediately after the second stage surgery and after 1 month it was substituted with a new implant. All the remaining implants appeared clinically stable, no signs of radiolucency were present at the bone-implant interface, therefore, they could be defined successfully osseointegrated. The radiographic analysis showed stable bone crest levels with a mean bone loss of 1.35 mm for the Group A, of 1.87 mm for the Group B and of 1.71 for the Group C during the period of observation. Only 2 implants demonstrated an increased crestal bone loss of 3.5 mm and 4 mm respectively at the first year examination. On the base of these results, we can confirm previous long term studies on regenerated bone and we can conclude that vertically augmented bone with GBR techniques responds to implant placement like native, non-regenerated bone.

Future research should clearly identify the clinical and patient benefits resulting from ridge preservation compared with traditional procedures. In addition, future research should also aim at better identifying parameters critical for positive treatment outcomes with immediate implants. The result of this procedure should be compared to early and late implant placement.