Assessment of vertical ridge augmentation in anterior aesthetic zone using onlay xenografts with titanium mesh versus the inlay bone grafting technique: A randomized clinical trial2017Mounir et al. [32]RCT16 patients, 40 implants6 months postoperativeOnlay vs. inlay bone graftingNot reportedNot reported1 dehiscence in the onlay group20.7% (onlay), 31.6% (inlay). No difference between groups
(p = 0.2)Short Versus Longer Implants in Mandibular Alveolar Ridge Augmented Using Osteogenic Distraction: One-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Split-Mouth Trial2018Bernardi et al. [23]Split-mouth RCT36 patients, 170 implants1 year post-loading6 mm vs. 10 mm implants94.2% for 6 mm implants, 84.5% for 10 mm implants (p = 0.5705)Similar in both groups22/36 patients with complications in augmented sites. Higher at augmented sites (p < 0.05)Not reported4 mm long vs. longer implants in augmented bone in posterior atrophic jaws: 1-year post-loading results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial2018Bolle et al. [24]Multicenter RCT80 patients (40 in mandible)1 year post-loading4 mm vs. >10 mm implants in augmented sitesNo difference in implant failure (p = 1)Less bone loss with short implants in mandible (0.40 mm vs. 0.52 mm) (p = 0.006)9/20 complications in augmented sites and fewer complications with short implants (p = 0.003)Not reported Short implants versus longer implants in vertically augmented posterior mandibles: result at 8 years after loading from a randomised controlled trial2018Felice et al. [28]RCT60 patients8 years6.6 mm long implants vs. 9.6 mm or longer implants in augmented sites5 failures in short implants vs. 3 failures in augmented sites (p = 1)Short implant: 1.58 mm MBL compared with 2.46 mm in the augmented groupMore complications in augmented patients (27 in 22 augmented patients vs. 9 in 8 patients of the short implant group) (p < 0.001)Not reportedAssessment of vertical ridge augmentation and labial prominence using buccal versus palatal approaches for maxillary segmental sandwich osteotomy (inlay technique): A randomized clinical trial2018El Hadidy et al. [30]RCT16 patients, 40 implants4 months postoperativeBuccal vs. palatal approachNot reportedNot reportedNo complications79.9% (buccal), 76.5% (palatal). No significant difference
(p = 0.43)Five-year results from a randomised controlled trial comparing prostheses supported by 5-mm long implants or by longer implants in augmented bone in posterior atrophic edentulous jaws2019Felice, Barausse et al. [27]RCT (split-mouth)30 patients (15 in mandible and 15 in maxilla)—56 implants5 years post-loading5 mm vs. >10 mm implants in augmented sitesNo difference in implant failure (p = 1)Short implants: 1.72 mm MBL compared with 2.10 mm in the augmented group
(p = 0.022)12 patients with 14 complications in augmented sites. No difference compared with short implantsNot reportedPosterior atrophic jaws rehabilitated with prostheses supported by 6-mm-long 4-mm-wide implants or by longer implants in augmented bone. Five-year post-loading results from a within-person randomised controlled trial2019Felice, Pistilli et al. [26]Within-person RCT40 patients (20 in mandible and 20 in maxilla)—88 implants5 years post-loading6 × 4 mm vs. >10 mm implants in augmented sitesNo difference in implant failure (p = 1)Short implants: 1.34 ± 0.35 mm MBL compared with 2.11 ± 0.59 mm in the augmented group
(p = 0.003)14 patients with 19 complications in augmented sites. No difference compared with short implants (p = 0.118)Not reportedPosterior atrophic jaws rehabilitated with prostheses supported by 5 × 5 mm implants with a nanostructured calcium-incorporated titanium surface or by longer implants in augmented bone. Five-year results from a randomised controlled trial2019Esposito et al. [25]RCT80 patients (40 in mandible)—63 implants5 years post-loading5 × 5 mm vs. >10 mm implants in augmented sitesNo difference in implant failure (p = 0.609)Short implant: 1.22 mm MBL compared with 1.70 mm in the augmented group
(p = 0.004)More complications in augmented site compared to short implant in mandible (0.013)Not reportedAssessment of vertical ridge augmentation and marginal bone loss using autogenous onlay vs. inlay grafting techniques with simultaneous implant placement in the anterior maxillary esthetic zone: A randomized clinical trial2019El Zahwy et al. [31]RCT16 patients, 40 implants6 months postoperativeOnlay vs. inlay graftingNot reportedCrestal bone loss: 4.77 mm in onlay vs. 1.65 mm in inlay
(p < 0.05)Onlay group: 12 complications. Inlay group: No complications3.34 mm (inlay), −0.02 mm (onlay) (p < 0.05)Maxillary vertical alveolar ridge augmentation using computer-guided sandwich osteotomy technique with simultaneous implant placement versus conventional technique: A pilot study2021Nazzal et al. [29]RCT (pilot study)12 patients4 months postoperativeComputer-guided vs. conventional sandwich osteotomyNot reportedNot reported1 complication in study group. Significantly reduced palatal tipping with computer-guided technique (p < 0.001)4.4 mm (guided), 3.9 mm (conventional)Maxillary vertical alveolar ridge augmentation using sandwich osteotomy technique with simultaneous versus delayed implant placement: A proof of principle randomized clinical trial2022Al-Dubai et al. [21]RCT16 patients, 35 implants4 months postoperativeSimultaneous vs. delayed implant placement100%Not reported1 complication in the control group4.04 mm (simultaneous), 3.86 mm (delayed). No significant difference
(p = 0.518)Assessment of bone gain and neurosensory affection with the sandwich osteotomy technique for vertically deficient posterior mandible using a full digital workflow versus conventional protocol: A randomized split mouth study2024Moussa et al. [22]Split-mouth RCT10 patients, 40 implants4 months postoperativeDigital workflow vs. conventional sandwich osteotomyNot reportedNot reported1 case of dehiscence (resolved)3.76 mm (digital), 2.69 mm (conventional)
(p = 0.001)