Larger Vertical Ridge Augmentation: A Retrospective Multicenter Comparative Analysis of Seven Surgical Techniques

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), graft resorption (after one year), donor site morbidity, dehiscence rate, need for material removal, and biological and general financial costs. Results: Harvesting time significantly varied among the different ARA techniques (p = 0.0025), with the longest mean durations in ICGs (51.6 ± 5.8 min) and IBBs (36.5 ± 10.8 min), and no harvesting was required for the other techniques. Insertion times also significantly differed between the different ARA techniques (p < 0.0001) and were longest in IBBs (50.1 ± 7.5 min) and the ST (47.3 ± 13.9 min). ICGs achieved the highest vertical and horizontal bone gain (5.6 ± 0.4 mm), while ABBs and CAD/CAM ABBs showed the lowest (~3.0 mm). Resorption rates significantly differed between the different ARA techniques (p < 0.0001) and were highest for ICGs (25.9 ± 3.9%) and lowest for MSs (5.1 ± 1.5%). Donor site morbidity was 100% in ICGs and 50% in IBBs, with no morbidity in the other groups. Dehiscence rates were 10% in most techniques but 30% in CAD/CAM TMs. Removals were required in all techniques except MSs. Biological and financial costs were high for ICGs and CAD/CAM ABBs and low for MSs. Conclusions: Vertical ARA techniques significantly differ regarding harvesting and insertion time, bone gain, graft resorption, donor site morbidity, dehiscence rates, removals, and costs. While ICGs achieved the highest bone volume, less invasive techniques, such as CAD/CAM-based or resorbable scaffolds, reduced biological costs and complication risks. Technique selection should be individualized based on defects, patients, and reconstructive goals.