Among many techniques advocated for the horizontally deficient alveolar ridges, ridge-split has many advantages. Here, treatment management strategies of the horizontally collapsed ridges, especially the ridge-split approach, are discussed and a clinically relevant implant-driven classification of the alveolar ridge width is proposed, with the goal to assist an operator in choosing the proper bone augmentation technique. Comparison and advantages of two commonly used techniques, ridge-split and block bone graft, are presented.

Introduction

It has been shown that although bone collapse after tooth loss is usually three dimensional (3D), the horizontal deficiency or width loss develops to a larger extent.1,2  Alveolar width deficiency can represent loss of buccal (labial) cortical or medullary bone, or both. Deficiency of the buccal cortex (cortical plate) after tooth extraction can present significant difficulty in implant reconstruction.3,4  The buccal cortical plate with a thickness <2 mm next to an implant appears to have a higher risk of subsequent resorption.5 

A variety of implant-driven bone augmentation techniques for the deficient alveolar bone have been proposed.68  Four of these techniques are frequently performed: (1) guided bone regeneration (GBR)/particulate bone grafting;9,10  (2) onlay (veneer) block bone grafting with intraoral sources, such as chin, ramus, posterior mandible, zygomatic buttress, and maxillary tuberosity;1113  (3) ridge-split/bone graft procedure;1416  and (4) alveolar distraction osteogenesis.1719  Most of these techniques are designed to improve horizontal bone loss before or simultaneously with dental implant placement.

Diagnosis and Treatment Planning

It is important to establish a proper diagnosis based on the alveolar ridge assessment before initiation of the treatment plan. Initial clinical evaluation supplemented by radiographic images helps in most cases to distinguish two-dimensional (2D) versus 3D alveolar bone deficiency. Although minimal bone loss and patient's lack of desire to go through grafting surgical procedure(s) can be circumvented with restorative means, extensive bone atrophy usually requires surgical correction for a proper implant placement.

Alveolar bone should be initially assessed clinically (visually) for a rough width and height analysis and interarch-occlusal relationships. In some cases, although 7–8 mm of bone width is present, it could be lingually (palatally) positioned and therefore might require an additional buccal bone grafting for a proper restoratively driven implant insertion.

Alveolar width can be measured with different calipers on top of the thin mucosa or by ridge mapping (with local anesthesia) through it. Panoramic and other 2D radiographic images are often sufficient in some implant cases, although an implant-driven bone analysis often implies need for a 3D or volumetric bone evaluation with cone beam computerized tomography (CBCT) scans. CBCT improves the ability for precise measurement of the ridge on all levels as well as evaluation of both cortical and medullary portion of the bone for primary implant stability (Figures 1 and 2).

Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1. Cone beam computerized tomography scan of the horizontally deficient edentulous maxillary alveolar ridge. Alveolar bone width and height, as well as thickness of the buccal and palatal cortical and medullary bone are demonstrated. This alveolar ridge is a class III ridge according to the classification presented in the article. Figure 2. Axial cone beam computerized tomography scan of the horizontally collapsed edentulous right maxillary alveolar ridge showing varied thickness of the alveolar ridge.

Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1. Cone beam computerized tomography scan of the horizontally deficient edentulous maxillary alveolar ridge. Alveolar bone width and height, as well as thickness of the buccal and palatal cortical and medullary bone are demonstrated. This alveolar ridge is a class III ridge according to the classification presented in the article. Figure 2. Axial cone beam computerized tomography scan of the horizontally collapsed edentulous right maxillary alveolar ridge showing varied thickness of the alveolar ridge.

Classification of the Alveolar Ridge Width

In 1988, Cawood and Howell20  suggested an anatomic classification of the edentulous jaws for the preprosthetic surgery. It proposed six classes and detailed the changes that the edentulous alveolar process in anterior and posterior maxilla and mandible undergo after teeth extraction (the pattern of resorption). In 1989, Jensen21  proposed an implant-driven site classification by bone quality and quantity and proximity to vital structures. In 2002, Wang and Al-Shammari22  described a practical (therapeutically oriented) classification of alveolar ridge defects, that is, horizontal, vertical, and combination defects, proposing the edentulous ridge expansion approach (ridge-split) for the horizontal and combination defects of the alveolar ridge.

Here, a clinically relevant implant-driven classification of the alveolar ridge width based on precise measurement of the alveolar width with computerized tomography/CBCT scans is recommended; it is presented in the Table 1. The classification attempts to match the specific ridge (its width and topography) with the appropriate surgical technique (GBR, ridge-split, or block graft) that can be used in the particular case of horizontal bone atrophy. Although each operator's experience ultimately determines the chosen surgical technique, it is important to compare benefits and drawbacks of different surgical procedures for certain ridges to improve the selection process.

Table 1

Classification of alveolar ridge width

Classification of alveolar ridge width
Classification of alveolar ridge width
Table 1

Extended

Extended
Extended
Figures 3 and 4.

Figure 3. Intraoperative photograph of the ridge-split procedure demonstrating the mobilization and repositioning of the buccal muco-osteo-periosteal flap. Figure 4. Intraoperative photograph of the ridge-split procedure that is done simultaneously with the implant insertion.

Figures 3 and 4.

Figure 3. Intraoperative photograph of the ridge-split procedure demonstrating the mobilization and repositioning of the buccal muco-osteo-periosteal flap. Figure 4. Intraoperative photograph of the ridge-split procedure that is done simultaneously with the implant insertion.

Comparison of the Ridge-split and Block Bone Grafting Techniques

A literature review showed few similarities and many differences between autogenous intraoral monocortical (veneer) block graft and ridge-split/bone graft techniques. Both procedures require a skilled surgical practitioner equipped with knowledge of regional anatomy and vascularization and prepared for risks and complications of the procedure. Both the ridge-split and block grafting techniques are used mainly for a 2D horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation (alveolar bone widening; some height gain can also be achieved with both techniques).

Autogenous block bone grafting demonstrates high osteogenic potential and effective in severe anterior alveolar atrophy in maxilla and mandible.2325  Two main disadvantages of monocortical block grafts are donor site morbidity and late-term graft resorption.26  The monocortical block bone resorption has been reported to have up to 5% early bone loss and up to 40% late bone loss of the entire graft volume due to remodeling and inadequate consolidation.27 

Table 2 shows differences (10-point comparison) between the ridge-split procedure and autogenous intraoral monocortical block bone grafting. Factors that are presented include donor- and recipient site morbidity, type of wound closure, buccal flap integrity and vascularity, specifics of wound healing, type of bone interface, and possibility of an immediate implant placement.

Table 2

Ten-point comparison of ridge-split and monocortical block bone graft techniques

Ten-point comparison of ridge-split and monocortical block bone graft techniques
Ten-point comparison of ridge-split and monocortical block bone graft techniques

Conclusion

Knowledge of 3D bone anatomy with CBCT scan helps to establish a proper ridge diagnosis before initiation of implant treatment. The recommended ridge width classification for the horizontally deficient alveolar ridges is designed to be a clinically relevant implant-driven anatomic guide for choosing an appropriate surgical modality for the specific collapsed alveolar ridge. Operator experience and surgical comfort ultimately determines the choice of the technique. The ridge-split approach tends to have many advantages, including lack of donor site morbidity and a graft stability over time.

Abbreviations

     
  • CBCT

    cone beam computerized tomography

  •  
  • GBR

    guided bone regeneration

References

References
1
Schropp
L
,
Wenzel
A
,
Kostopoulos
L
,
Karring
T
.
Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single tooth extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month prosthetic study
.
Int J Periodont Restor Dent
.
2003
;
23
:
313
323
.
2
Botticelli
D
,
Berglundh
T
,
Lindhe
J
.
Hard tissue alterations following immediate implant placement in extraction sites
.
J Clin Periodontol
.
2004
;
31
:
820
828
.
3
Cardaropoli
G
,
Araújo
M
,
Lindhe
J
.
Dynamics of bone tissue formation in tooth extraction sites. An experimental study in dogs
.
J Clin Periodontol
.
2003
;
30
:
809
818
.
4
Araújo
M
,
Lindhe
J
.
Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog
.
J Clin Periodontol
.
2005
;
32
:
212
218
.
5
Qahash
M
,
Susin
C
,
Polimeni
G
,
Hall
J
,
Wikesjö
UM
.
Bone healing dynamics at buccal peri-implant sites
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2008
;
19
:
166
172
.
6
Aghaloo
TL
,
Moy
PK
.
Which hard tissue augmentation techniques are the most successful in furnishing bony support for implant placement?
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2007
;
22
(
suppl
):
49
70
.
7
McAllister
BS
,
Haghighat
K
.
Bone augmentation techniques
.
J Periodontol
.
2007
;
78
:
377
396
.
8
Chiapasco
M
,
Zaniboni
M
,
Boisco
M
.
Augmentation procedures for the rehabilitation of deficient edentulous ridges with oral implants
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2006
;
1
(
suppl 2
):
136
159
.
9
Buser
D
,
Brägger
U
,
Lang
NP
,
Nyman
S
.
Regeneration and enlargement of jaw bone using guided tissue regeneration
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
1990
;
1
:
22
32
.
10
Annibali
S
,
Bignozzi
I
,
Sammartino
G
,
La Monaca
G
,
Cristalli
MP
.
Horizontal and vertical ridge augmentation in localized alveolar deficient sites: a retrospective case series
.
Implant Dent
.
2012
;
21
:
175
185
.
11
Bedrossian
E
,
Tawfilis
A
,
Alijanian
A
.
Veneer grafting: a technique for augmentation of the resorbed alveolus prior to implant placement. A clinical report
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2000
;
15
:
853
858
.
12
Pikos
MA
.
Mandibular block autografts for alveolar ridge augmentation
.
Atlas Oral Maxillofac Clin North Am
.
2005
;
13
:
91
107
.
13
Tolstunov
L
.
Maxillary tuberosity block bone graft: innovative technique and case report
.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg
.
2009
;
67
:
1723
1729
.
14
Simion
M
,
Baldoni
M
,
Zaffe
D
.
Jawbone enlargement using immediate implant placement associated with a split-crest technique and guided tissue regeneration
.
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
.
1992
;
12
:
462
473
.
15
Scipioni
A
,
Bruschi
GB
,
Calesini
G
.
The edentulous ridge expansion technique: a five-year study
.
Int J Periodontics Restor Dent
.
1994
;
14
:
451
459
.
16
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
:
1921
1930
.
17
McCarthy
JG
.
The role of distraction osteogenesis in the reconstruction of the mandible in unilateral craniofacial microsomia
.
Clin Plast Surg
.
1994
;
21
:
625
631
.
18
Chin
M
,
Toth
BA
.
Distraction osteogenesis in maxillofacial surgery using internal devises: review of five cases
.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg
.
1996
;
54
:
45
53
.
19
Laster
Z
,
Reem
Y
,
Nagler
R
.
Horizontal alveolar ridge distraction in an edentulous patient
.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg
.
2011
;
69
:
502
506
.
20
Cawood
JI
,
Howell
RA
.
A classification of the edentulous jaws
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg
.
1988
;
17
:
232
236
.
21
Jensen
O
.
Site classification for the osseointegrated implant
.
J Prosthet Dent
.
1989
;
61
:
228
234
.
22
Wang
HL
,
Al-Shammari
K
.
HVC ridge deficiency classification: a therapeutic oriented classification
.
Int J Periodontics Restor Dent
.
2002
;
22
:
335
343
.
23
Barone
A
,
Covani
U
.
Maxillary alveolar ridge reconstruction with nonvascularized autogenous block bone: clinical results
.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg
.
2007
;
65
:
2039
2046
.
24
Cordaro
L
,
Amadé
DS
,
Cordaro
M
.
Clinical results of alveolar ridge augmentation with mandibular block bone graft in partially edentulous patients prior to implant placement
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2002
;
13
:
103
111
.
25
Adeyemo
WL
,
Reuther
T
,
Bloch
W
,
et al
.
Influence of host periosteum and recipient bed perforation on the healing of onlay mandibular bone graft: an experimental pilot study in the sheep
.
Oral Maxillofac Surg
.
2008
;
12
:
19
28
.
26
Casap
N
,
Brand
M
,
Mogyros
R
,
et al
.
Island osteoperiosteal flaps with interpositional bone grafting in rabbit tibia: preliminary study for development of new bone augmentation technique
.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg
.
2011
;
69
:
3045
3051
.
27
Romero-Olid Mde N, Vallencillo-Capilla M
.
A pilot study in the development of indices for predicting the clinical outcomes of oral bone grafts
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2005
;
20
:
595
604
.
28
Acocella
A
,
Bertolai
R
,
Calafranceschi
M
,
Sacco
R
.
Clinical, histological and histomorphometric evaluation of the healing of mandibular ramus bone block grafts for the alveolar ridge augmentation before implant placement
.
J Craniomaxillofac Surg
.
2010
;
38
:
222
230
.
29
Oppenheimer
AJ
,
Tong
L
,
Buchman
SR
.
Craniofacial bone grafting: Wolff's law revisited
.
Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr
.
2008
;
1
:
49
61
.
30
Gonzalez-Garcia
R
,
Monje
F
,
Moreno
C
.
Alveolar split osteotomy for the treatment of the severe narrow ridge maxillary atrophy: a modified technique
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg
.
2011
;
40
:
57
64
.
31
de Wijs
FL
,
Cune
MS
.
Immediate labial contour restoration for improved esthetics: a radiographic study on bone splitting in anterior single-tooth replacement
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
1997
;
12
:
686
696
.