The paper can be found here. Note at the end he notes that for CCW rotations an extra 1-2cm is needed and it sounds like plates are then used, no graft. That doesn't sound very stable to me for an otherwise already unstable procedure but he has enough experience so I'd believe him if he claims it to be. The incision length looks about half the normal incision so the nerves typically most vulnerable have the same risk factor as before. The main benefit I see is that multi-segment surgeries should be less risky with this technique and, to that extent, there should be fewer teeth that die. More of the mucosa is left intact so the drop in blood flow would be less but, at the same time, it's unclear what impact it has on the tear rate from the paper. Less scar tissue is certainly nice. It's certainly not going to impact time needed for bone to heal and soft tissue typically heals well before that point anyway.
It's hard to know if any US surgeons have adopted it or not. I've seen pictures of Dr Alfaro around with other prominent surgeons so I suspect many of the big names here are familiar with it. Some of them may have adopted it but they wouldn't advertise it because it's not their invention and most of their patients wouldn't understand anyway. Probably the biggest reason is that many simply haven't had the training to learn it and don't want to experiment with it on their patients. It takes time for this kind of stuff to percolate. If I lived in Europe, then he'd certainly be at or near the top of a very short list.
