English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The aim of the present study was to propose the clinical efficacy of the different dentin matrix obtained from three devices (BonMaker, Tooth Transformer, and Smart Dentin Grinder) and to show their morphological, physical, and biochemical characteristics using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy-dispersive X-ray (EDX) spectroscopy, and Raman spectroscopy. The study included 70 patients who underwent bone augmentation using the BonMaker, Tooth Transformer, and Smart Dentin Grinder devices. In addition, 84 implants were placed. Furthermore, four samples, one for each device and one non-demineralized control, were analyzed with scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy-dispersive X-ray analysis, and Raman spectroscopy. In all patients, augmentation of bone defects with ground dentin matrix was successful, and implants showed correct osseointegration. The morphological organization, the chemical composition, and the presence of organic molecules in the dentin samples processed by the three different devices were demonstrated using SEM, energy-dispersive X-ray analysis, and Raman spectroscopy. Comparing BonMaker, Tooth Transformer, and Smart Dentin Grinder devices in our practice, we concluded that these systems, even with different structural and chemical differences of the dentin granules, have a comparable potential for obtaining regenerative material from the patient’s own teeth.

Comparison of clinical efficacy of three different dentin matrix biomaterials obtained from different devices