After an implant consultation a patient sometimes hears a sentence that sounds alarming: "there is not enough bone — it needs to be rebuilt". The natural question is: does an implant come into consideration at all? The answer is — yes, in most cases it does, but treatment requires additional stages. Bone augmentation is a procedure whose purpose is to restore the volume of the alveolar ridge (the part of the maxilla or mandible in which the teeth are anchored). In this article we explain when it is necessary, what types of grafts exist, how long healing takes, and why the conversation about treatment time should take place before the decision, not after it.
When does an implant require bone augmentation?
An implant requires augmentation when the amount of bone remaining after tooth loss is insufficient for safe placement of the fixture. The most common causes are: a prolonged period since extraction (bone resorbs physiologically after loss of the root), a history of periodontal disease, trauma or cysts. The decision is made after analysis of a cone-beam computed tomography scan (CBCT) — a panoramic radiograph is not sufficient because it does not show the bucco-lingual dimension of the bone, which determines the width of the ridge.
Types of bone defects — vertical vs horizontal
Augmentation is not a single procedure but a family of techniques selected according to the type of defect.
Horizontal defects — the most common. The ridge is too narrow in the bucco-lingual cross-section. Solutions: GBR (guided bone regeneration with a barrier membrane), bone blocks, ridge expansion.
Vertical defects — technically more challenging. The ridge is too short in height. They usually require more advanced techniques: autogenous blocks, titanium-reinforced membranes, sinus lift (in the posterior maxilla). Vertical augmentation has a less predictable prognosis than horizontal augmentation — this is important information for planning.
Combined defects (vertical and horizontal) require an individualised plan, sometimes staged, with separate augmentation and implant placement phases.
Augmentation materials — comparison of four groups
Four groups of biomaterials are used in clinical practice. Each has different regenerative properties and limitations.
| Material | Origin | Advantages | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Autogenous | From the patient's own body (mandibular symphysis/chin area, mandibular ramus, iliac crest) | Best osteogenic properties — living bone cells. The "gold standard" | Second surgical site (donor site), limited quantity, greater discomfort |
| Allogeneic | From a human donor (tissue banks) | No second surgical site, good regeneration outcomes | Full tissue-bank documentation required; some patients require an educational discussion regarding the origin of the material |
| Xenogeneic | Of animal origin (most commonly bovine) | Good availability, slow resorption — stable volume | Contains no living cells; serves only as a scaffold for regeneration |
| Alloplastic | Synthetic (β-TCP, hydroxyapatite) | No risk of infection, controlled resorption | Lower regenerative potential than autogenous material |
In practice, materials are frequently combined — for example, autogenous chips mixed with xenogeneic graft and covered with a collagen membrane. The choice depends on the type of defect, the availability of autogenous bone, the patient's preferences and the location within the oral cavity.
GBR — guided bone regeneration
Guided bone regeneration (GBR) is the most commonly used technique for horizontal augmentation. It involves filling the defect with a biomaterial and covering it with a barrier membrane — so that soft tissue does not ingrow into the regeneration area faster than bone. Membranes are classified as resorbable (collagen — most commonly used for simple horizontal defects) and non-resorbable (d-PTFE and titanium-reinforced — used for more challenging vertical defects). An alternative to non-resorbable membranes is titanium mesh (Ti-mesh).
The success of GBR depends on several factors: watertight wound closure, stability of the biomaterial, infection control and the absence of smoking. This is a technique-sensitive procedure — it does not tolerate membrane exposure or inadequate flap closure.
Sinus lift — a special case of augmentation
In the posterior maxilla the problem usually lies not in the width but in the height of the bone — between the crest of the ridge and the floor of the maxillary sinus. A sinus lift (elevation of the maxillary sinus floor) involves raising the Schneiderian membrane (the thin lining of the sinus) and introducing biomaterial beneath it. Two variants exist: closed (osteotomy from the ridge crest, used when the residual bone height is 5–8 mm and the planned elevation is 2–4 mm) and open (from the buccal side, when the residual bone height is less than 5 mm).
A sinus lift is a predictable procedure with high success rates described in systematic reviews. It does, however, require careful assessment of the sinus condition before the procedure — chronic sinusitis, polyps or a bony septum may change the plan.
Treatment timeline — from augmentation to the final crown
| Stage | Duration | What happens |
|---|---|---|
| Augmentation | 1 procedure, 60–120 min | Introduction of biomaterial, membrane, flap closure. |
| Bone healing | 4–6 months (horizontal GBR with xenograft) or 6–9 months (vertical augmentation, autogenous block, open sinus lift) | Mineralisation of the graft, integration with surrounding bone. |
| Implant placement | 1 procedure after healing | Insertion of the fixture into regenerated bone. |
| Osseointegration | 3–6 months | Biological fusion of the implant with bone. |
| Prosthetic phase | 4–8 weeks | Abutment, impression, crown/bridge. |
| Total | 9–18 months | Depending on the augmentation technique and location. |
This is important information that the Modern Dental & Orthodontics team communicates to patients before the first procedure: augmentation extends treatment. In the case of complex vertical defects the full pathway — from the first procedure to the fitted crown — may take over a year. This is not "procedural inefficiency" but the biology of healing, which cannot be accelerated pharmacologically.
Risks and limitations worth knowing about
- Partial graft resorption — a small loss of volume is physiological; significant loss may require re-augmentation.
- Membrane exposure — the most common complication of GBR; requires early intervention.
- Perforation of the Schneiderian membrane during sinus lift — in most cases manageable intraoperatively.
- Patient risk factors: active smoking significantly reduces the success of augmentation; uncontrolled diabetes prolongs healing; bisphosphonates require a separate MRONJ risk assessment (discussed in a separate article).
- Rare complications: infection, paraesthesia in the area of the inferior alveolar nerve (in the mandible), chronic pain.
Key takeaways
- Bone augmentation is not a verdict — it is an additional stage of treatment that in most cases makes planned implant placement possible.
- The type of augmentation is chosen according to the defect type (horizontal vs vertical) and its location.
- Augmentation materials have different properties — none is "the best"; each has appropriate indications.
- The full treatment pathway from augmentation to crown usually takes 9–18 months. This should be factored into planning.
- Smoking significantly reduces the success of augmentation — this is a factor worth discussing with the clinician before the procedure.
Frequently asked questions
Is bone augmentation painful?
The procedure itself is performed under local anaesthesia, optionally with inhalation or intravenous sedation — the patient does not experience pain during it. In the first 2–3 days after augmentation most patients experience swelling and moderate discomfort, which usually responds well to standard analgesics (e.g. paracetamol alternating with ibuprofen, as directed by the treating clinician).
How long do I need to wait between augmentation and implant placement?
The standard bone healing period after augmentation is 4–6 months (horizontal GBR with xenograft) or 6–9 months (vertical augmentation, autogenous block, open sinus lift) — this is how long the graft needs to integrate with the surrounding bone and achieve sufficient density for the fixture. Shorter healing applies to simple horizontal defects with xenogeneic material; longer healing to vertical augmentations with autogenous blocks and open sinus lifts.
Can an implant be placed in a single stage with bone augmentation?
In selected cases, yes. A single-stage procedure is used when the bone defect is small and adequate primary implant stability can be achieved despite the deficient volume. For extensive vertical defects or a classic open sinus lift a two-stage protocol is recommended: augmentation first, implant placement after several months. The decision is made after CBCT analysis.
Is a bone graft from a donor or of animal origin safe?
Allogeneic and xenogeneic materials undergo purification processes (deproteinisation, sterilisation, removal of the organic component) that effectively eliminate the risk of disease transmission. These are the same materials used in thousands of augmentation procedures worldwide every year. Nevertheless, some patients have ethical or personal concerns about the origin of the material — in the Modern Dental & Orthodontics team's practice we always discuss the available options and allow the patient to make an informed choice.
Is bone augmentation covered by the NFZ (Polish national health fund)?
Bone augmentation performed for the purpose of implant placement is not covered by the NFZ — implantology in Poland remains a privately funded service. The cost depends on the type of technique, the volume of biomaterial used and the complexity of the case. A detailed estimate is always presented after a consultation and CBCT analysis.
Can I smoke after bone augmentation?
Smoking significantly reduces the success of augmentation — nicotine impairs microcirculation in the tissues, delays wound healing and increases the risk of membrane exposure, infection and graft failure. Optimally, smoking should be stopped at least 2 weeks before the procedure and 8 weeks after. In patients who are unwilling to quit, this risk must be discussed honestly before the decision to operate is made.
What should I eat in the first days after bone augmentation?
For the first 7–10 days a soft, cool or room-temperature diet is recommended — cream soups, yoghurts, scrambled eggs, well-cooked vegetables, smoothies. Avoid chewing on the operated side, hard or crunchy foods, alcohol and hot liquids. After the sutures are removed (usually 10–14 days), the patient gradually returns to a normal diet.
Can bone augmentation be performed in older patients?
Chronological age alone is not a contraindication — the capacity for bone regeneration is maintained even in patients over 70. The decision depends on the overall health status: controlled chronic conditions (hypertension, diabetes), the absence of uncontrolled osteoporosis or bisphosphonate therapy, and good oral hygiene. The Modern Dental & Orthodontics team assesses each patient individually.
What happens if the bone graft does not take?
Partial graft resorption is physiological — a small loss of volume after several months is normal. Significant failure (infection, complete graft loss) occurs rarely and usually requires surgical debridement, followed by re-augmentation after 3–6 months of healing. In most cases the treatment plan can be revised and the procedure repeated successfully.
Read more:
- Dental Implants: https://klinikamdo.pl/en/offer/implantology/
- What to avoid with dental implants? https://klinikamdo.pl/en/blog/what-to-avoid-with-dental-implants/
- How much does a tooth implant cost in Poland in 2026? https://klinikamdo.pl/en/blog/dental-implant-cost-poland-2026/
- How long does it take to heal after a dental implant? Osteointegration step by step https://klinikamdo.pl/en/blog/healing-time-after-dental-implant-osseointegration/
- Dental implant vs bridge — which is better? https://klinikamdo.pl/en/blog/dental-implant-vs-bridge/
Sources
Source 1
Links https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12531 │ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37752820/ │ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/prd.12531
Description Calciolari E, Corbella S, Gkranias N, Viganó M, Sculean A, Donos N. „Efficacy of biomaterials for lateral bone augmentation performed with guided bone regeneration. A network meta-analysis.” Periodontol 2000. 2023;93(1):77-106.
Source 2
Links https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13282 │ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38114425/ │ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cid.13282
Description Cucchi A, Maiani F, Franceschi D, Sassano M, Fiorino A, Urban IA, Corinaldesi G. „The influence of vertical ridge augmentation techniques on peri-implant bone loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis.” Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2024;26(1):15-65.
Source 3
Links https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7742687 │ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35872861/ │ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9303140/
Description Zhang M, Zhou Z, Yun J, Liu R, Li J, Chen Y, Cai H, Jiang HB, Lee ES, Han J, Sun Y. „Effect of Different Membranes on Vertical Bone Regeneration: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.” Biomed Res Int. 2022;2022:7742687.
Source 4
Links https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13390 │ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33067890/ │ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcpe.13390
Description Couso-Queiruga E, Stuhr S, Tattan M, Chambrone L, Avila-Ortiz G. „Post-extraction dimensional changes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.” J Clin Periodontol. 2021;48(1):126-144.
Source 5
Links https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010176.pub3 │ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33899930/ │ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8092674/
Description Atieh MA, Alsabeeha NHM, Payne AGT, Ali S, Faggion CM Jr, Esposito M. „Interventions for replacing missing teeth: alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development.” Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;4(4):CD010176.
Source 6
Links https://doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2025.16201 │ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40693126/ │ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12276080/
Description Starch-Jensen T, Østergaard KB, Bruun NH, Shino IL, Hallund MH. „Transcrestal Maxillary Sinus Membrane Elevation using Osseodensification Compared with Alveolar Ridge Augmentation using the Lateral Window or Osteotome Technique: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2025;16(2):e1.