OBJECTIVE The aim of this systematic review was to determine the most effective alveolar augmentation technique for vertical bone gain. METHODS A systematic search to select clinical trials and retrospective studies done on patients with reduced vertical bone height was conducted. The intervention of interest was autogenous block graft done compared to procedures such as distraction osteogenesis (DO), particulate grafting, block plus particulate grafting with titanium mesh, and tent pole technique in systematically healthy adult patients age 18 and older. The following electronic databases were explored: PubMed, CINAHL, and Dental and Oral Science. A supplementary manual search of published full-text articles from January 2005 to December 2017 was done using Google Scholar. Grey literature was also sought using greylit.org. The review protocol was registered at the Prospero registry (CRD # 42017072432). The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using EPOC criteria. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager for studies with quantitative data on mean values of vertical bone gain and bone resorption achieved with various bone augmentation techniques. Random effect model was used. Heterogeneity among studies was evaluated using the I2 statistic. RESULTS A total of 2322 articles were found. After excluding the irrelevant papers, only 8 papers were finally selected for the detailed evaluation. Of these 8, 5 were clinical trials, and 3 were retrospective studies. Four studies were on DO, 2 on particulate grafting, 1 on autogenous block grafting plus particulate grafting, and 1 on tent pole grafting. The control group in all studies were autogenous block graft. Meta-analysis revealed no significant difference between DO and autogenous block grafting for vertical bone gain (mean difference 0.82 [-1.28, 2.91]). Similarly, no significant difference was observed in the 2 techniques for bone resorption (mean difference 0.38 [-0.23, 0.99]). CONCLUSIONS DO was not superior to autogenous block grafting for vertical bone augmentation. Both techniques were associated with a number of complications. There was no difference in the bone resorption observed in the 2 techniques. No conclusive results can be drawn on other techniques on account of limited data.