Patients can only legally commit to dental implant treatment if they were informed in an adequate and comprehensive manner (Oehler 2003; Ries et al. 2002; von Ziegner 2001; Schinnenburg 2000; Ratajczak 2000; Gaisbauer 1995,1997; Fallschüssel 1985; Könning 1989; Deutsch 1983). This principle is universally valid in the European and North American legal systems and is a logical consequence of every patient’s right to self-determination and personal liberty (Fischer and Lilie 1999). It is incumbent on the implantologist, based on his knowledge of the literature and his own experience, to critically appraise and re-define the precise meaning of «adequate», «comprehensive» and «state of the art» on a continuous basis. Dentists are not generally required to inform their patients of any outdated treatment techniques if newer, simpler, cheaper or less invasive techniques are available. They are required, however, to inform their patients of any new techniques known to yield similar results if they offer tangible benefits for the patient, even though these techniques may not be widely used (German Dental Association 2003). This provision can make it mandatory for users of traditional techniques to inform their patients of BOI, particularly when indications show that the patient does not wish to be treated with bone grafts harvested from the iliac crest or skull.