Ridge Augmentation in the Maxilla and Mandible: Bone Types and Indications

July 1, 2025
By Lisa Germain, DDS, MScD

Ridge augmentation is a critical surgical procedure in oral and maxillofacial surgery used to rebuild or enhance deficient alveolar ridges in the maxilla and mandible. This procedure is often a prerequisite for dental implant placement, especially in cases of alveolar bone loss due to trauma, tooth extraction, periodontal disease, or congenital defects. The success of ridge augmentation depends heavily on the selection of appropriate grafting materials and techniques, tailored to the patient’s specific needs and anatomical considerations. This article reviews the types of bone graft materials—autografts, allografts, xenografts, and alloplasts—used in ridge augmentation, the techniques employed, and the indications for each approach.

Types of Ridge Augmentation

Ridge augmentation can be classified broadly into several categories based on the anatomical defect, timing, and surgical technique:

  1. Horizontal Ridge Augmentation

This is the most common type of augmentation and is used when there is insufficient bone width to place an implant. The goal is to widen the ridge to accommodate the proper diameter of a dental implant.

  1. Vertical Ridge Augmentation

This technique addresses the loss of bone height, which is more challenging than horizontal augmentation due to the need for enhanced vascularity and stabilization of graft material.

  1. Socket Preservation (Alveolar Ridge Preservation)

Performed immediately after tooth extraction to prevent alveolar bone resorption. The socket is filled with graft material to maintain ridge volume.

  1. Onlay Grafting

A method of adding graft material directly onto the surface of a deficient ridge, particularly in horizontal or vertical defects.

  1. Interpositional Grafting

This technique places the graft material between segments of bone, often in cases requiring both height and width augmentation.

  1. Sinus Lift (for posterior maxilla)

Although technically not a ridge augmentation, sinus lifts involve bone grafting in the maxillary sinus to allow implant placement when vertical bone height is insufficient.

Bone Grafting Materials

The choice of grafting material is paramount to the outcome of ridge augmentation. Each type of graft material offers unique biological properties such as osteogenesis, osteoinduction, and osteoconduction.

  1. Autografts (Autogenous Bone)

Autografts are harvested from the patient’s own body, typically from intraoral sites (mandibular symphysis, ramus) or extraoral sites (iliac crest, tibia).

  • Advantages: Osteogenic (contains living cells), osteoinductive, and osteoconductive. No risk of immune rejection or disease transmission.
  • Disadvantages: Limited quantity, additional surgical site, donor site morbidity.

Indications:

  • Ideal for significant vertical or horizontal defects.
  • Preferred in cases where rapid integration is essential.
  • Used in combination with guided bone regeneration (GBR) for more predictable outcomes.
  1. Allografts

Allografts are derived from human donors and processed to eliminate immunogenic components. They are available in several forms:

  • Freeze-Dried Bone Allograft (FDBA): Primarily osteoconductive.
  • Demineralized Freeze-Dried Bone Allograft (DFDBA): Possesses osteoinductive potential due to retained bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs).
  • Advantages: Readily available, no second surgical site, useful for large defects.
  • Disadvantages: Slight risk of disease transmission (very low), slower remodeling compared to autografts.

Indications:

  • Socket preservation.
  • Horizontal ridge augmentation.
  • Combined with autografts or barrier membranes in GBR techniques.
  1. Xenografts

Xenografts are derived from animal sources, typically bovine or porcine bone. They undergo extensive processing to eliminate organic components and are highly osteoconductive.

  • Advantages: Excellent volume stability, slow resorption rate, widely available.
  • Disadvantages: Lack osteoinductive or osteogenic properties, potential patient concerns regarding animal origin.

Indications:

  • Ridge preservation.
  • Minor to moderate horizontal defects.
  • Sinus augmentation procedures.
  1. Alloplasts (Synthetic Bone Substitutes)

Alloplasts include materials like hydroxyapatite, beta-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP), and bioactive glass. These are entirely synthetic and function as osteoconductive scaffolds.

  • Advantages: No disease transmission, customizable resorption rates, cost-effective.
  • Disadvantages: No osteoinductive or osteogenic properties.

Indications:

  • Small ridge defects.
  • Combination with autografts or growth factors.
  • Patients with contraindications to biological grafts.

Indications for Ridge Augmentation

Ridge augmentation is indicated in several clinical scenarios:

  • Insufficient alveolar bone for implant placement: When the bone height or width does not permit the stable placement of a dental implant.
  • Post-traumatic or pathological defects: Trauma, cysts, or tumors can lead to bone defects requiring grafting.
  • Congenital deformities: In cases such as cleft alveolus, ridge augmentation may be required before prosthetic rehabilitation.
  • Periodontal bone loss: Severe bone loss due to periodontitis may require augmentation before or after periodontal treatment.
  • Esthetic zone implant placement: Ridge augmentation ensures ideal implant positioning for esthetic outcomes in the anterior maxilla.

Combination Techniques and Enhancements

Many contemporary approaches use a combination of grafting materials and biologics to enhance healing and integration.

  • Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR): Combines barrier membranes with grafting material to direct bone growth while excluding soft tissue.
  • Growth factors: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP), platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), and recombinant human bone morphogenetic proteins (rhBMP-2) can enhance healing and bone formation.
  • Mesh or tenting techniques: Used in vertical augmentation to support soft tissue and stabilize graft materials.

Site-Specific Considerations: Maxilla vs. Mandible

Maxilla

  • More cancellous bone, faster resorption, and reduced bone density.
  • Often requires sinus lift procedures due to proximity to maxillary sinus.
  • Greater need for volume stability and longer healing periods.

Mandible

  • Denser cortical bone, slower resorption.
  • Donor sites such as the symphysis and ramus are commonly used.
  • Requires careful planning due to proximity to the inferior alveolar nerve.

Conclusion

Ridge augmentation plays a foundational role in implant dentistry and oral rehabilitation. The choice of grafting material—autograft, allograft, xenograft, or alloplast—should be based on the patient’s clinical needs, defect size, site-specific anatomy, and risk tolerance. Advances in biomaterials, growth factors, and surgical techniques continue to improve the predictability and success of ridge augmentation in both the maxilla and mandible.

Bibliography

    1. Buser, D., Dula, K., Hirt, H. P., & Schenk, R. K. (1996). Lateral ridge augmentation using autografts and barrier membranes: a clinical study with 40 partially edentulous patients. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 54(4), 420–432.
    2. Aghaloo, T. L., & Moy, P. K. (2007). Which hard tissue augmentation techniques are the most successful in furnishing bony support for implant placement? The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, 22(Suppl), 49–70.
    3. Wang, H. L., & Boyapati, L. (2006). “PASS” principles for predictable bone regeneration. Implant Dentistry, 15(1), 8–17.
  • Misch, C. E. (2014). Contemporary Implant Dentistry (3rd ed.). Mosby.
  1. Darby, I., Chen, S., & De Poi, R. (2008). Ridge preservation: what is it and when should it be considered. Australian Dental Journal, 53(1), 11–21.
  2. Simion, M., Baldoni, M., Rossi, P., & Zaffe, D. (1994). A comparative study of the effectiveness of e-PTFE membranes with and without early exposure during the healing period. The International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry, 14(2), 166–180.

Urban, I. A., Lozada, J. L., & Jovanovic, S. A. (2009). Vertical ridge augmentation with guided bone regeneration in the posterior maxilla: a retrospective study of 35 patients. The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, 24(2), 502–510.