ReviewCureus2026
Assessment of Vertical/Horizontal Ridge Augmentation in Atrophic Alveolar Ridge Using Autogenous Onlay Versus Inlay Grafting Techniques: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Alveolar ridge atrophy presents a major challenge in implant dentistry, often necessitating surgical augmentation to restore adequate bone volume for predictable implant placement. Among the various autogenous grafting approaches, the inlay and onlay techniques are widely utilized, yet their comparative clinical efficacy remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the outcomes of vertical and horizontal ridge augmentation using inlay versus onlay grafting techniques in atrophic alveolar ridges. An extensive electronic and manual search of major databases was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, and eligible randomized controlled trials and comparative clinical studies assessing autogenous grafts were included. Six studies met the inclusion criteria. Both techniques produced appreciable gains in bone height and width; however, the inlay technique demonstrated more favorable results in terms of graft stability, reduced volumetric resorption, and improved soft tissue healing. Inlay grafts benefited from superior vascularization and mechanical protection due to their placement within the osteotomized host bone, resulting in fewer complications and better preservation of augmented volume. By contrast, onlay grafts showed higher rates of resorption, flap dehiscence, and graft exposure, particularly in vertical augmentations where soft tissue tension and limited vascular supply are significant challenges. Despite promising findings, heterogeneity among studies and limited long-term data restrict definitive conclusions. Further well-designed randomized controlled trials with standardized protocols and extended follow-up are needed to strengthen the evidence base. Overall, the inlay technique appears to offer predictable and stable outcomes, particularly in complex augmentation scenarios.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.