Skip to main content
Download PDF

The efficacy of alveolar ridge split on implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Oral Health volume 23, Article number: 894 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the effects of the alveolar ridge split (ARS) technique on gained horizontal width of the alveolar ridge and implant survival rate.

Materials and methods

Electronic searching was performed in six electronic databases (Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and SIGLE) from January 1, 2010, to November 1, 2023. Two authors performed study selection, data extraction, and study qualities (ROBINS-I and RoB 2.0) independently. Meta-analysis was performed by Comprehensive meta-analysis 3.0.

Results

24 included studies were observational, and 1 study was a randomized controlled trial (RCT). 14 studies investigated the gained width of the horizontal alveolar ridge, and 17 examined the implants’ survival rate. For assessment of risk of bias, nine studies were high risk of bias and 16 studies were moderate risk of bias. Meta-analysis demonstrated that the pooled gained alveolar ridge width was 3.348 mm (95%CI: 4.163 mm, 2.533 mm), and the implant survival rate was 98.1% (95%CI: 98.9%, 96.9%). Seven studies showed seven different complications including exposure, infection, bad split, dehiscence, fracture, paresthesia and soft tissue retraction.

Conclusion

Recent ARS technique seems to be an effective method of bone augmentation with enough gained width and a high implant survival rate. Further long-term and RCTs research remains needed to enhance the study quality.

Clinical relevance

The ARS technique could generate sufficient bone volume, and implants had a high-level survival rate. Therefore, ARS has been proposed to be a reliable horizontal bone augmentation technique that creates good conditions for the implantation of narrow alveolar crests.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Recently, implant surgery has become integral to dental treatment for patients with dentition defects. Dental implants have become the first choice for more people than ever before. However, not everyone is appropriate for implant surgery. The quantity and quality of alveolar ridges at the implant placement determine an implant’s osseointegration and longevity. Nevertheless, alveolar bone resorption is common after tooth extraction, especially in the maxillae. The buccolingual alveolar ridge dimensions decrease by 3.1 to 5.9 mm 4 to 12 months after extraction [1]. Besides, studies have shown an 11–22% decrease in alveolar bone height and a 29–63% decrease in alveolar bone width in the first 12 months after tooth extraction [2]. In addition, fractures are also a common factor for jaw bone defects. Traffic accidents have been pointed out to be the major incident for fractures especially in the mandible [3]. Therefore, many patients require bone augmentation, especially in horizons.

Several bone augmentation approaches address horizontal bone resorption to achieve successful implantation and long-term results, including bone block grafting, guided bone regeneration (GBR), sinus augmentation and alveolar ridge split (ARS). However, bone block grafting had disadvantages like donor site morbidity and longer treatment time. GBR had the risk of infection due to exposure membrane and collapse of the regeneration membrane [4, 5]. These drawbacks may eventually lead to implant failure. A sinus augmentation was demonstrated to be an effective method for increasing bone height without intraoperative complications even if it was an invasive surgical procedure [6]. Alternatively, the ARS technique may solve some barriers and create proper dimensions for delayed or immediate implantation in both maxillary and mandible. For example, Samieirad et al. successfully performed implant restoration in a severely atrophic maxilla (less than 3 mm) area using bone augmentation with the ARS technique [7]. Besides, Bruschi et al. [8] reported that the success rate of ARS for horizontal bone defects was 98.54% with a minimum 5-year follow-up. These reveal that ARS is a reliable alternative for horizontal bone augmentation.

ARS refers to the surgical procedure of splitting the cortical bone to expand the ridge so implants can be inserted [9]. The method of ridge expansion was first mentioned by Tatum [10] and then modified by Summers [11] with hand osteotomes. The strengths of ARS are shortening treatment duration, decreasing the possibility of infection and morbidity, and being more predictable. ARS seems to be a better choice for narrow alveolar ridge and horizontal bone augmentation. Khoury et al. [12] reported that ARS could achieve an average of 5.2 mm horizontal gained width. Moreover, Jensen et al. [13] found that ARS had a higher implant survival with fewer technical complications than other horizontal bone augmentation methods. However, ARS still had some deficiencies, like fractures, bad splits, and dehiscence.

ARS is the routinely used alveolar bone augmentation technique before dental implant insertion, especially for horizontal ridge deficiency. However, various studies investigating ARS have appeared with multiple clinical outcomes recently. Also, many clinicians are still unfamiliar with the clinical effectiveness of ARS. Therefore, this systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of recent ARS techniques on gained horizontal bone width and implant survival rate until 2010.

Materials and methods

The systematic review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; Registration number: CRD42022354569).

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Inclusion criteria for eligible studies

Inclusion criteria for included studies were established by the acronym PICOS (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Study design).

  • Patients (P): Completely or partially edentulous patients underwent implant surgery with ARS. There was no gender or age restriction.

  • Intervention (I): ARS for bone augmentation in implant surgery.

  • Comparison (C): The bone width of the alveolar ridge before and after the ARS and the survival rate of an implant in some period.

  • Outcome (O): Primary outcomes: The increased horizontal bone width of the alveolar ridge. Secondary outcomes: The survival rate of implants.

  • Study design (S): Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonRCTs (NRCTs).

Exclusion criteria

  • Nonhuman studies (animals and in vitro studies).

  • Studies that the number of patients is less than 10.

  • Studies that did not mention the horizontal width of the alveolar ridge and the survival rate of the implant.

  • Studies that horizontal width didn’t record either mean or standard deviation.

  • Review studies.

Search strategies and study selection

Two researchers (Mr. Lin and Mr. Li) searched independently in the following databases:

Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the grey literature database of SIGLE. The search was from January 1, 2010, to November 1, 2023, without any language restriction. The investigation was conducted by two authors (Mr. Lin and Mr. Li) independently and in duplicate. The specific search strategies are demonstrated in Table 1.

Table 1 Search strategy
Full size table

Titles and abstracts were initially screened after duplicates were removed. After assessing full texts, the remaining studies were reevaluated, and final articles were selected. PICOS criteria were followed in the screening process. Two review authors (Mr. Lin and Mr. Li) independently finished the search and studies assessments, and any disagreements were solved by the third review author (Dr. Luo).

Cohen’s unweighted kappa (κ) statistics were used to assess the inter-investigator reliability.

Data extraction

The general data, including study type, demographic data (age, samples, and sex), intervention, the amounts of implants, and outcomes, were all extracted and recorded independently and duplicated by two authors (Mr. Lin and Mr. Li). Any disagreements were judged by the third review author (Dr. Luo).

Outcomes involved the primary and secondary outcomes–the increased width of the horizontal alveolar ridge after the ARS was regarded as the primary outcome. The survival rate of implants was considered the secondary outcome.

Statistical analysis

Primary outcome data were put into statistical pooling through random effects models using Comprehensive meta-analysis 3.0. The criteria of data pooling were determined a priori based on comparability of study design, patient type, outcomes measured, treatments, and risk of bias. Mean difference and standard deviation were used for statistical pooling for continuous data. Besides, the event rate was employed for statistical pooling for dichotomus data. For the meta-analyses, both fixed and random-effect models were used to test the reliability of the studies. Then the random-effects model was finally chosen out of conservativeness. In addition, heterogeneity among studies was assessed through the I2 statistic, and an I2 statistic more significant than 50% was considered substantial heterogeneity.

Risk of bias assessment

Risk of bias assessment of included studies was performed independently by two authors (Mr. Lin and Mr. Li) using Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies – of Interventions (ROBINS-I) [14] for NRCTs studies and Cochrane Collaborations’ Risk of Bias 2.0 [15] (RoB 2.0) for RCTs studies. In addition, the Begg and Egger test were used to assess the risk of publication bias.

Results

Search strategy

The framework for the literature search and study inclusion is displayed in Fig. 1. The initial electronic search resulted in 235 records upon removal of the duplicates, and no additional studies were identified through a manual search of the gray literature and electronic databases. Of the total studies, 193 articles were excluded after title, abstract, and keyword screening. Upon full-text analysis of the remaining 42 articles, 25 studies [8, 9, 12, 16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36] fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram for processes of studies search and selection

Full size image

Description of included studies

The characteristics of all included studies are presented in Table 2. Among 25 studies, 14 studies [9, 12, 16,17,18,19,20,21,22, 28,29,30, 35, 36] reported gained horizontal width of ARS technique, and 17 studies [8, 9, 17, 19,20,21, 23,24,25,26,27, 30,31,32,33,34, 37] discussed the survival rate of implants. All studies were observation design except 1 RCT [29], 12 [9, 12, 16,17,18, 21, 22, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36] were prospective, and 12 [8, 19, 20, 23,24,25,26,27,28, 31, 34, 37] were retrospective studies. 20 studies [9, 12, 16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26, 28, 30, 31, 34,35,36,37] used full-thickness flaps to approach the alveolar ridge, the other three studies [8, 27, 32] implemented partial-thickness flaps, and two studies [29, 33] went through flapless surgeries. For the surgery site, only six studies [19, 26, 28, 30, 33, 37] just focused on the mandible, and the other 19 studies [8, 9, 12, 16,17,18, 20,21,22,23,24,25, 27, 29, 31, 32, 34,35,36] involved the maxillae with/without the mandible. 21 included studies [9, 12, 16,17,18,19,20,21, 23,24,25,26, 28,29,30,31,32,33,34, 36, 37] reported that bone graft was used in the surgery, including 12 autologous bones and nine xenografts.

Table 2 Characteristics of included studies
Full size table

Risk of bias assessment

The results of the risk of bias assessment are presented in Table 3. Within 24 non-RCT studies, 8 studies [12, 19, 20, 28, 30, 33, 34, 37] were regarded as having a high risk of bias, and 16 studies [8, 9, 16,17,18, 21,22,23,24,25,26,27, 29, 31, 32, 35, 36] were designated as the overall moderate risk of bias. Of the 1 RCTs, the study [29] had a high risk of bias.

Table 3 Risk of bias
Full size table

Meta-analysis

We analyzed the gained width of alveolar ridge and implant survival rate of ARS technique. As shown in Figs. 2 and 3, the results were 3.348 mm (95%CI: 4.163 mm, 2.533 mm) for gained horizontal width among 14 studies [9, 12, 16,17,18,19,20,21,22, 28,29,30, 35, 36] and 98.1% (95%CI: 98.9%, 96.9%) for implant survival rate among 17 studies [8, 9, 17, 19,20,21, 23,24,25,26,27, 30,31,32,33,34, 37].

Fig. 2
figure 2

Forest plots of gained width of horizontal alveolar ridge

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plots of survival rate of implants

Full size image

Sensitivity analysis

One study removed from the meta-analysis was employed to implement sensitivity analysis. All meta-analysis results demonstrated no significant changes, which represented that the results were robust in this meta-analysis.

Complications

Overall, seven studies [9, 12, 16, 23, 24, 26, 29] demonstrated seven complications intra or after the surgery including exposure, infection, bad split, dehiscence, fracture, paresthesia and soft tissue retraction (Table 4).

Table 4 Description of complications in included studies
Full size table
  1. 1)

    Exposure: Altiparmak et al. [23] found that 2.3% of cases had temporary exposure to the augmented region. Khoury et al. [12] found late bone exposure in 2 sites (1-3 mm) and exposure of screws (20.13%). Moro et al. [16] reported membrane exposure in 1 case.

  2. 2)

    Infection: Altiparmak et al. [23] reported that 4.7% of cases were mild infections. Jamil et al. [9] revealed that 11.54% of cases had minor soft tissue infections. Khoury et al. [12] found that the grafted area with abscess and pus had an infection (1 case). Mahmoud et al. [29] revealed some patients with infections.

  3. 3)

    Bad split: Altiparmak et al. [23] found that 7.1% of cases presented a bad split. Gurler et al. [24] revealed that a bad split was seen in two patients.

  4. 4)

    Dehiscence: Gurler et al. [24] reported that 1 patient had wound dehiscence. Jamil et al. [9] found wound dehiscence in 4 cases (15.38%) and bony dehiscence (1-2 mm from the crest) at 3 implant sites (5.26%). Mahmoud et al. [29] found irrecoverable surgical site mucosal dehiscence in their subjects.

  5. 5)

    Fracture: Moro et al. [16] found a vestibular cortex fracture in 1 case. Sohn et al. [26] found a thin buccal cortical plate fracture in 5 patients.

  6. 6)

    Paresthesia: Jamil et al. [9] found that 19.23 cases had transient paresthesia. Yadav et al. [36] reported 2 patients (9.09%) had paresthesia.

  7. 7)

    Soft tissue retraction: Khoury et al. [12] found soft tissue retraction on the adjacent tooth of the vertical incision in 2 cases.

Publication bias

The assessment of publication bias is presented in Table 5. For horizontal gained width and survival rate, the Begg and Egger tests demonstrated no evidence of publication bias except for survival rate.

Table 5 Publication bias
Full size table

Discussion

Dental loss, fractures, and pathological processes may cause critical alveolar ridge defects. Patients with severe bone resorption remained a challenge for implantation. Bone augmentation is an important method to ensure the survival and success of implants in patients with defective and atrophic alveolar ridges. ARS technique is considered an effective augmentation method for treating deficient alveolar ridges.

In this study, we systematically reviewed 24 observational and 1 RCT studies [8, 9, 12, 16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37] using the ARS technique to gain horizontal width. The results appealed that ARS could somewhat enhance the horizontal width of alveolar bone. According to the meta-analysis, the width gained from ARS was 3.633 mm within the range of 2.0-5.3 mm. Our results are consistent with the previous studies. For instance, Jensen et al. [38] recommended that the appropriate expansion width of ridge splitting be 3–4 mm. In addition, Crespi et al. [27] indicated a statistically significant increase in the maxillary ridge horizontal width than in the mandible after the split crest technique. It could be explained by the fact that the mean thickness of the buccal wall in the mandible is thinner than half in the maxillary. ARS is a method which splits buccal wall to achieve bone volume. The buccal bone in the maxillary is highly viscoelastic and flexible to minimize the trauma to the bone. Instead, the thinner thickness of mandibular buccal wall which consists of bone cortex leaded to difficult degree of ARS. Furthermore, a case report [39] also presented that the maxillary bone gained more width than the mandible. Maxillary bone which mainly consists of D2, D3 and D4 type bone can be manipulated to appropriate location. However, the bone in the mandible which are mainly D1 and D2 caused obviously difficult for bone manipulation. Manekar et al. [30] revealed that a case (Type 4) with high density of the alveolar bone was not appropriate to be expanded because it caused cervical bone loss. Moreover, a case report [40] presented that the atrophic posterior mandible could be successfully improved by the custom alveolar ridge splitting technique with stable implant placement. Froum et al. [41] also showed the case series that the custom alveolar ridge splitting technique could create intraosseous defect in the atrophic anterior maxilla with successfully implant placement.

On the other hand, the meta-analysis also revealed that the survival rate of implants was 98.1%, within the range of 93.9–100%. It is similar to the rate obtained with standard implant placement procedures. The results indicated that the ARS technique could generate sufficient bone volume, and implants had a high-level survival rate. The implants inserted into expanded ridges using ARS are as successful as those placed into the native, unreconstructed bone. This could be due to sagittal osteotomized ridge gaps undergoing spontaneous ossification following the same procedure as fractures. Thus, ARS (3.63 mm) achieved a lower horizontal bone augmentation width than bone block grafting (4.25 mm) [42]. However, using ARS technology for horizontal bone augmentation can still meet the bone mass requirements for implant placement. Starch-Jensen et al. [13] systematically reviewed the implant treatment outcomes after maxillary alveolar ridge expansion using bone block augmentation versus the ARS technique. The results indicated that the ARS technique could be helpful in horizontal augmentation of the maxillary alveolar bone defect, and the survival rate of prostheses and implants was high. Furthermore, Wu et al. [35] revealed that a new novel U-shape splitting technique (2.56 ± 1.92 mm) could achieve significantly higher gained width than the GBR technique (0.73 ± 1.21 mm). Altiparmak et al. [23] reported that ARS (100%) had a higher survival rate than onlay bone grafting (92%), but there was no significant difference between those two treatment methods. Mahmoud et al. [29] found that there was no significant difference in gained width between autologous bone block grafting (ABBG) and flapless piezotome crest split (FPCS). Still, FPCS has significantly reduced operative time (by > 50%), postoperative pain, and swelling than ABBG. Moreover, more importantly, ARS also have the advantages of immediate implantation and short treatment time. By reducing the healing period, ARS can shorten the length of treatment and provide economic value for patients.

As for complications, this systematic review concluded all included studies with seven complications. However, some complications occurred in an individual study, like paresthesia and soft tissue retraction. The complications in ARS were dehiscence, fracture, exposure, infection, and bad splits. Most complications were well solved by clinicians in the included studies. It also agreed with the previous studies reporting that the common complication for ARS was fracture of the buccal bone [43] and temporary graft exposure [23]. Buccal plate fractures are the most frequent intraoperative complication of ARS, and it has been noted that smaller alveolar bone widths increase fracture risk. As reported, the incidence of fractures increases significantly when the alveolar width is less than 3 mm. Stricker et al. [44] proposed a biomechanical model to mimic the alveolar ridge splitting and a finite element (FE) model to predict maximum lamella displacement to prevent fractures. Samieirad et al. [7] performed a two-step technique to expand the buccal bone and improve the resilience of residual alveolar bone. In this technique, horizontal bone augmentation was performed on the atrophic maxillary anterior ridge by ARS, and then the ridge was expanded, and implants were placed after 6 months. This technique has successfully treated patients with maxillary residual alveolar widths less than 3 mm, and no wound dehiscence or buccal plate fractures were observed. Anitua et al. [37] also demonstrated that delayed implantation with alveolar width narrower than 3 mm could minimize the danger of buccal wall fracture. Furthermore, Goyal and Iyer [45] stated that green stick fracture in the mandible was not controllable owing to the cortical thickness of the bone and the risk of fracture. Compared to the mandible, the thinner cortical plates and softer medullary cancellous bone in the maxilla are more accessible and applicable for ARS. Therefore, many studies recommended two-stage treatment in the mandible. However, Jamil et al. [9] successfully inserted implants into a ridge width of 1 and 1.5 mm and a one-stage approach in the mandible, which was not recommended for the type of surgery. Manekar et al. [30] also smoothly use single-stage alveolar ridge split and expansion (ARSE) to implement immediate implant insertion and reduce the treatment time. Furthermore, the ARS technique with Piezosurgery provided clinicians with immediate implant placement by bone grafting and implant insertion simultaneously. It could essentially reduce the possibility of morbidity, treatment duration, and cost [29].

Even if the present study demonstrated good clinical efficacy, there are still some limitations. Firstly, most human studies did not set a control group and were non-randomized controlled trials. Instead, animal studies have still been conducted but adequately differed from human clinical trials. In addition, short follow-up duration, the limited number of patients, different surgery regions, age, different split technique and clinician experience might be confounding factors to the analysis. Therefore, further studies are supposed to strictly draw up the comparison like (anterior vs. posterior, maxillary vs. mandible, different sex and age), and then cautiously analyze and research the outcomes. Furthermore, factors influencing the results with the ARS technique are also significant to explore.

In this review, the literature search was electronically implemented in six databases. Every method was individually and comprehensively done. We also searched the gray literature to ensure no additional relevant studies were missed, representing an excellent coverage of our topic.

Conclusion

Through the systematic review and meta-analysis, the recent ARS technique seems to be an effective method for bone augmentation with enough gained width and a high survival rate. Further long-term and RCTs research should be needed to enhance the study quality.

Data availability

The datasets used and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

ARS:

Alveolar ridge split

GBR:

Guided bone regeneration

RCT:

Randomized controlled trial

ABBG:

Autologous bone block grafting

PFCS:

Flapless piezotome crest split

FE:

Finite element

ARSE:

Alveolar ridge split and expansion

References

  1. Leblebicioglu B, Hegde R, Yildiz VO, Tatakis DN. Immediate effects of tooth extraction on ridge integrity and dimensions. Clin Oral Investig. 2015;19(8):1777–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Stumbras A, Kuliesius P, Januzis G, Juodzbalys G. Alveolar Ridge Preservation after tooth extraction using different bone graft materials and autologous platelet concentrates: a systematic review. J oral Maxillofacial Res. 2019;10(1):e2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Aldelaimi AAKJImjI. A Clinical Analysis of Surgically Managed Mandibular Fractures: Epidemiology, Clinical Profile, Patterns, Treatments, and Outcomes. 2020(4):27.

  4. Sanz-Sánchez I, Sanz-Martín I, Ortiz-Vigón A, Molina A, Sanz M. Complications in bone-grafting procedures: classification and management. Periodontol 2000. 2022;88(1):86–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tay JRH, Ng E, Lu XJ, Lai WMC. Healing Complications and their detrimental effects on bone gain in vertical-guided bone regeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2022;24(1):43–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Aldelaimi TN, Khalil AA. Maxillary sinus augmentation. J Craniofac Surg. 2016;27(6):E557–E9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Samieirad S, Soofizadeh R, Shokouhifar A, Mianbandi VJJoDM. Techniques. A two-step method for the Preparation of Implant recipient site in severe atrophic Maxilla: a Case Report of the Alveolar Ridge Split technique followed by bone expansion. 2019;8:59–64.

  8. Bruschi GB, Capparé P, Bravi F, Grande N, Gherlone E, Gastaldi G, et al. Alveolar ridge split and expansion with simultaneous implant placement in mandibular posterior sites using motorized ridge expanders – modified treatment protocol. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017;32(1):114–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jamil FA, Al-Adili SS. Lateral Ridge splitting (expansion) with ImmediatePlacement of Endosseous Dental Implant using Piezoelectric device: a New Treatment Protocol. J Craniofac Surg. 2017;28(2):434–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tatum H. Jr. Maxillary and sinus implant reconstructions. Dental Clin N Am. 1986;30(2):207–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Summers RB. A new concept in maxillary implant Surgery: the osteotome technique. Compendium (Newtown Pa). 1994;15(2):152. 4–6, 8 passim; quiz 62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Khoury F, Hanser T. Three-Dimensional Vertical Alveolar Ridge Augmentation in the posterior Maxilla: a 10-year clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34(2):471–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Starch-Jensen T, Becktor JP. Maxillary Alveolar Ridge Expansion with Split-Crest technique compared with lateral Ridge Augmentation with Autogenous Bone Block Graft: a systematic review. J oral Maxillofacial Res. 2019;10(4):e2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ (Clinical Research ed). 2016;355:i4919.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ (Clinical Research ed). 2019;366:l4898.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Moro A, Gasparini G, Foresta E, Saponaro G, Falchi M, Cardarelli L, et al. Alveolar Ridge Split technique using piezosurgery with specially designed Tips. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:4530378.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Rahpeyma A, Khajehahmadi S, Hosseini VR. Lateral ridge split and immediate implant placement in moderately resorbed alveolar ridges: how much is the added width? Dent Res J. 2013;10(5):602–8.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Teng F, Zhang Q, Wu M, Rachana S, Ou G. Clinical use of ridge-splitting combined with ridge expansion osteotomy, sandwich bone augmentation, and simultaneous implantation. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;52(8):703–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Holtzclaw DJ, Toscano NJ, Rosen PS. Reconstruction of posterior MandibularAlveolar Ridge deficiencies with thePiezoelectric hinge–assisted Ridge SplitTechnique: a retrospective Observational Report. J Periodontol. 2010;81(11):1580–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Anitua E, Begoña L, Orive G. Clinical evaluation of Split-Crest technique withUltrasonic bone Surgery for narrow RidgeExpansion: Status of Soft and Hard tissues and Implant Successcid_340 176.187. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013;15(2):176–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Albanese M, Ricciardi G, Luciano U, Donadello D, Lucchese A, Gelpi F, et al. Alveolar splitting with Piezosurgery®, bone bank grafts and NobelActive implants as an alternative to major bone grafting for maxillary reconstruction. Minerva Stomatol. 2019;68(1):3–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nguyen VG, von Krockow N, Weigl P, Depprich R. Lateral ridge split and immediate implant placement in moderately resorbed alveolar ridges: how much is the added width? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016;31(3):687–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Altiparmak N, Akdeniz SS, Bayram B, Gulsever S, Uckan S. Alveolar Ridge Splitting VersusAutogenous Onlay Bone Grafting: Complications and Implant Survival Rates. Implant Dent. 2017;26(2):284–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gurler G, Delilbasi C, Garip H, Tufekcioglu S. Comparison of alveolar ridge splitting and autogenous onlay bone grafting to enable implant placement in patients with atrophic jaw bones. Saudi Med J. 2017;38(12):1207–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Garcez-Filho J, Tolentino L, Sukekava F, Seabra M, Cesar-Neto JB, Araújo MG. Long-term outcomes from implantsinstalled by using split-crest techniquein posterior maxillae: 10 years of follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(3):326–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sohn DS, Lee HJ, Heo JU, Moon JW, Park IS, Romanos GE. Immediate and delayed lateral Ridge expansion technique in the atrophic posterior Mandibular Ridge. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;68(9):2283–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Crespi R, Toti P, Covani U, Crespi G, Menchini-Fabris GB. Maxillary and Mandibular Split Crest Technique with Immediate Implant Placement: a 5-Year cone Beam Retrospective Study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2021;36(5):999–1007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Korsakova AI, Zhadobova IA, Klochkov AS, Durnovo SA, Kochubeynik AV, Durnovo EA. Modified two-stage Split technique for Controlled Ridge Augmentation in horizontally atrophic posterior mandible: the First Stage of Research. Sovremennye Tekhnologii v Meditsine. 2021;12(4):40–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mahmoud ZT, Wainwright M, Troedhan A. Flapless Piezotome Crest Split AchievesComparable outcomes to Autologous Onlay Grafts with Significant Less Patient Morbidity and Complications—A Randomized Clinical Study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;78(11):1953–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Manekar VS, Shenoi SR, Manekar S, Jhon J. Alveolar ridge split and expansion with simultaneous implant placement in mandibular posterior sites using motorized ridge expanders – modified treatment protocol. Natl J Maxillofacial Surg. 2022;13(3):411–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Moukrioti J, Al-Nawas B, Kreisler M. Evaluation of the split bone technique for lateral ridge augmentation: a retrospective case-control study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34(5):1152–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Santagata M, Guariniello L, Tartaro G. A modified edentulous ridge expansion technique and immediate implant placement: a 3-year follow-up. J Oral Implantol. 2015;41(2):184–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Scavia S, Roncucci R, Bianco E, Maddalone M. Minimal invasive Flapless Piezotome Alveolar Crest Horizontal Split technique: preliminary results. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2020;21(1):28–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. de Souza CSV, de Sá BCM, Goulart D, Guillen GA, Macêdo FGC, Nóia CF. Split Crest technique with Immediate Implant to treat horizontal defects of the Alveolar Ridge: analysis of increased thickness and Implant Survival. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;19(4):498–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Wu Q, Yang B, Gao S, Gong P, Xiang L, Man Y, et al. Apical U-shape splittingtechnique for undercut areas ofthe anterior alveolar ridge: aprospective non-randomized controlled study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;48(3):388–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Yadav BK, Himabindu L, Thakur RK, Alqahtani AS, Gufran K, Tiwary A. Clinical Assessment of the bone Width following lateral Ridge expansion in augmentation of narrow alveolar ridges for placing Immediate Dental implants. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2022;14(Suppl 1):986–s90.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Anitua E, Alkhraisat MH. Is Alveolar Ridge Split a risk factor for Implant Survival? J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;74(11):2182–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Jensen OT, Cullum DR, Baer D. Marginal bone stability using 3 different flap approaches for alveolar split expansion for dental implants: a 1-year clinical study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67(9):1921–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Khairnar MS, Khairnar D, Bakshi K. Modified ridge splitting and bone expansion osteotomy for placement of dental implant in esthetic zone. 2014;5(1):110–4.

  40. Kimm H, Froum S, Eriguel J, Kalaw A, Abrandabadi S, Cho S. The Custom Alveolar Ridge splitting (CARS) technique for Predictable Horizontal Ridge Augmentation in the atrophic posterior mandible: a Case Report. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent. 2023(7):168–80.

  41. Froum SJ, Kadi RO, Wangsrimongkol B, Hengjeerajaras P, Reis N, Yu PYC, et al. The Custom Alveolar Ridge-Splitting (CARS) technique for Predictable Horizontal Ridge Augmentation in the Atrophic Anterior Maxilla: a retrospective Case Series Study. Int J Periodontics Restor Dentistry. 2021;41(3):397–.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sanz-Sánchez I, Ortiz-Vigón A, Sanz-Martín I, Figuero E, Sanz M. Effectiveness of lateral bone augmentation on the alveolar crest dimension: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2015;94(9 Suppl):128s–42s.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Milinkovic I, Cordaro L. Are there specific indications for the different alveolar bone augmentation procedures for implant placement? A systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;43(5):606–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Stricker A, Widmer D, Gueorguiev B, Wahl D, Varga P, Duttenhoefer F. Finite Element Analysis and biomechanical testing to analyze fracture displacement of Alveolar Ridge Splitting. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:3579654.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Goyal S, Iyer SSJIJCIDWD. Bone Manipulation Techniques. 2009:22–31.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This research received no external funding. This study was supported by the Applied Basic Research Project of Sichuan province (Grant number 2022NSFSC1345).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, West China School of Stomatology, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China

    Yuanyou Lin, Guanlin Li, Tingxiang Xu, Xuexiao Zhou & Feng Luo

  2. Department of Prosthodontics, West China School of Stomatology, Sichuan University, No. 14, Section 3, Renmin Nanlu, Chengdu, 610041, China

    Feng Luo

Authors
  1. Yuanyou Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guanlin Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tingxiang Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xuexiao Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Feng Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.L. and F.L.; methodology, Y.L.; data curation, G.L. and T.X.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.L.; writing—review and editing, X.Z. and F.L.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Feng Luo.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lin, Y., Li, G., Xu, T. et al. The efficacy of alveolar ridge split on implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health 23, 894 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03643-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03643-2

Keywords

BMC Oral Health

ISSN: 1472-6831

Contact us