Table 4.

Assessment parameters and study results

Author	Assessment method	Initial horizontal width in mm	Final horizontal width in mm	Horizontal gain in mm	Loss in mm	Bone formation in %	bone graft failure in %	Implant survival in % at last follow-up
Amorfini et al. [101]	Clinical assessment; CBCT scan	–	–	5.7	0.2	–	0	100
Barbu et al. [100]	Clinical assessment, CBCT scan	3.5	8.7	5.2			4.2	100
Beitlitum et al. [117]	Clinical assessment, CBCT scan	5.8 ± 0.6	10.0 ± 1.4	4.2 ± 0.9		–	0	100/24 mo
Di Stefano et al. [104]	Clinical assessment, CT scan, OPG, histology, immunohistochemistry	3.9 ± 0.1	7.1 ± 0.2	3.2		35	0	100
Nissan et al. [103]	Clinical assessment; CBCT scan; OPG	–	–	5.6 ± 1.0	0.2 ± 0.2	–	20.7	95.3/37 mo
Schwartz-Arad et al. [99]	Clinical assessment; OPG, CT scan	–	–	–	–	–	3.6	98.5/12 mo 92.5/36 mo 77.5/48 mo
Silva et al. [105]	Clinical, histology, microtomographic morphometry	–	–	4.6 ± 1.3	0.6	31.8	0	96/31.8 mo
Urban et al. [102]	Clinical assessment; periapical radiographs histomorphometry in 9 sites	1.9	7.2	5.3	1.1	31	6.3	100

Complications %: number of patients complication rate in the augmented sites occurring during the observation period; implant survival %: survival rate of implants in the augmented area in percent; horizontal gain (mm): horizontal augmentation result at the end of the observation period in millimeters; horizontal width (mm): horizontal metrics at the end of the observation period in millimeters; loss (mm)/(%): difference between the initially augmented distance and the final result in millimeters/percent; bone formation (%): amount of newly formed bone in the defect area in percent