ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2025
Histological Analysis of Sticky Tooth and Sticky Bone.
Article in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- An Autologous Tooth-Shell Technique for Ridge Reconstruction and Immediate Implant Placement: A Two-Case Technical Report and Review of the Literature.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- From Disease Control to Long-Term Stability: Regenerative and Prosthetic Management of Peri-Implantitis-A Five-Year Case Report.Reports (MDPI) · 2026Article
- Culture-Based Microbiological Assessment of Dentin Biomaterials Prepared from Long-Term Refrigerated Human Teeth: A Pilot Study Toward Evidence-Based Tooth Banking.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Physicochemical Stability of Dentin-Derived Biomaterials During Long-Term Storage.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis 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
methodsForty patients underwent maxillary alveolar ridge regeneration using four different biomaterials: Sticky Tooth processed with the BonMaker device (
resultsSuccessful alveolar ridge regeneration was achieved in all 40 patients. Histological analyses confirmed good integration between the biomaterials and bone tissue without signs of inflammation.
conclusionHistological 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.