IntroductionSo far, various techniques have been used for the reconstruction and regeneration of maxillary and mandibular bone defects. Autogenous bone grafting, guided bone regeneration (GBR), distraction osteogenesis, and nerve transposition are some of these regenerative techniques (1-8). Decision-making regarding treatment could be influenced by the type, size, and location of bone defects (2, 3, 9, 10). GBR had a high success rate in treating small alveolar defects such as dehiscence or fenestration. Regenerative bone walls around the defect with ingrown blood vessels can begin osteogenesis (11). Larger bone defects with insufficient regenerative walls and poor quality avascular bed require varying amount of autogenous bone graft from extra-oral or intra-oral donor sites, however, the patient may suffer from complications at the donor site as well as resorption of the bone graft. (10, 12-15) Recent research has focused on distinguishing the most successful augmentation surgery to restore deficient bone (4, 16-18). Surgical techniques and bone graft survival have been widely highlighted in the literature. However, the importance of the recipient site on the success rate of the augmentation procedure has been less discussed (16). We focused on the characteristics of the recipient site in the ABC classification (16) as follows: 1. Presence of vertical regenerative walls on both sides of the recipient site or a site classified in groups A and B respectively. Absence of walls regenerative on both sides named group C. (Fig.1, 2).2. Base width divided into 3 groups: 1: More than 5 mm; 2: between 3 and 5 mm; less than 3mm. Sinus cavities and extraction sockets have been completely excluded from this classification because the healing process is...... middle of paper ...... treatments are considered despite all possible morbidities and resorptions of the graft . But with proper case selection and modification of a c3 defect to A1, autogenous regenerative walls are created that will lead to simple and cost-effective treatment. Conclusion Amount of vertical or horizontal augmentation, illustrating high quality bone tissue during reentry, success rate of dental implants in bone grafting area and murky histological figures can never lead to decision making for the selection of the best treatment for patients with a deficient alveolar crest, if we do not have a detailed map of the recipient bone. With recipient site ABC classification, surgeons gain insight into the regenerative potential of the surgical bed and can consider certain modifications to help increase the success rate of bone healing and decrease donor site morbidity..