Background/Objectives: Contemporary implant dentistry is increasingly oriented toward minimally invasive regenerative strategies designed to reduce surgical morbidity while preserving or improving clinical outcomes. Conventional bone augmentation procedures remain effective and biologically well established, but they may be associated with greater patient burden, increased risk of complications, and higher technical demands in selected clinical scenarios. This narrative review critically examines minimally invasive bone regeneration approaches in implant dentistry, with particular focus on the Bone Core Technique, the Sub-Periosteal Peri-implant Augmented Layer (SPAL) technique, and Immediate Dentoalveolar Restoration (IDR), emphasizing their biological rationale, clinical indications, surgical workflows, limitations, and reported outcomes. Methods: A structured, non-systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify publications relevant to minimally invasive bone regeneration in implant dentistry. Priority was given to clinical studies, prospective cohorts, case series, technical descriptions, and biologically oriented conceptual papers addressing vascular preservation, flap limitation, donor-site morbidity, and peri-implant hard- and soft-tissue integration. Results: Available evidence suggests that minimally invasive regenerative protocols may offer favorable clinical and patient-centered outcomes only in carefully selected indications and when performed by experienced operators. The strength of support is uneven across techniques: the Bone Core Technique currently has the strongest dedicated prospective follow-up for localized peri-implant defects, SPAL is supported by limited retrospective and emerging histologic evidence, and IDR remains largely based on case reports, technique-driven descriptions, and broader immediate implant literature. Conclusions: Minimally invasive bone regeneration reflects a shift toward biologically guided and patient-centered treatment concepts in implant dentistry, but it should not be interpreted as a universal substitute for conventional augmentation. Its successful application depends on careful case selection, sound knowledge of wound healing and defect morphology, and advanced surgical and prosthetic expertise. Further research should prioritize standardized outcome measures, longer follow-up, and comparative prospective studies.
Porczyk et al. (2026) studied this question.