# Histological Analysis of Sticky Tooth and Sticky Bone

## TL;DR

This study compared two biomaterials, Sticky Tooth and Sticky Bone, for regenerating maxillary bone defects and found that Sticky Tooth healed faster.

## Contribution

The study provides a histological comparison of two novel biomaterials for bone regeneration and identifies faster healing with Sticky Tooth.

## Key findings

- All 40 patients achieved successful alveolar ridge regeneration.
- Histological analysis showed good integration of biomaterials with bone tissue and no inflammation.
- Sticky Tooth demonstrated faster bone healing than xenograft and allograft-based Sticky Bone.

## Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of Sticky Tooth (ST) derived from ground teeth and Sticky Bone (SB) based on equine bone and human allograft in maxillary bone defect regeneration through histological examination. Materials and Methods: Forty patients underwent maxillary alveolar ridge regeneration using four different biomaterials: Sticky Tooth processed with the BonMaker device (n = 10), Sticky Tooth prepared with the Smart Dentin Grinder (n = 10) Sticky Bone derived from an equine xenograft (n = 10), and Sticky Bone derived from human allografts (n = 10). CBCT imaging was performed preoperatively, post-regeneration, and during follow-up. Histological and quantitative statistical evaluation was conducted on biopsy samples obtained four months post-regeneration at the time of implant placement. Results: Successful alveolar ridge regeneration was achieved in all 40 patients. Histological analyses confirmed good integration between the biomaterials and bone tissue without signs of inflammation. Conclusion: Histological comparisons demonstrated that both ST and SB are effective biomaterials for bone regeneration. However, ST exhibited a faster bone healing process compared to xenograft and allograft SB.