BonMaker: Using a Patient’s Own Teeth for Bone Graft?

BonMakerContinuing our series of topic discussions on interesting new products we found at the recent International Dental Show (IDS), in this post we invite your comments on the BonMaker, an in-house advanced system for processing a patient’s own extracted teeth into a ‘Auto-Teeth bone’ graft material.

A bone graft particulate, that is created from the patient’s own body, is generally considered the gold standard in dental biologics. However, the processing of an autograft usually requires a more complicated surgical procedure. The BonMaker solves the usual problems encountered with autografts. With the BonMaker auto-teeth bone graft particulate processing, dentists can manufacture bone graft material specific to the patient by using the patient’s own extracted teeth.

The BonMaker takes the prepared patient’s crushed tooth fragments and processes them into bone graft particulate in just over 26 minutes. The consumables required are three tiny, color-coded bottles of BonReagent which come at a fraction of the cost of other bone graft materials. Furthermore, with a processing time of just over 26 mins, the particulate can be manufactured in the dental office. A single processing cycle can yield up to 3cc of bone graft material.

Below you can also watch a video introduction about the product.

What are your thoughts on the BonMaker and the possibility using a patient’s own teeth to create graft material?

13 thoughts on: BonMaker: Using a Patient’s Own Teeth for Bone Graft?

  1. Tuss says:

    How do you prevent say cyst formation in the graft material as there will pulpal tissue in the particulate?

  2. steve says:

    allograft is inexpensive and works beautifully. By the time it takes to manufacture this stuff, I’ll be finished with the procedure and already treating the next patient. Not time or cost-effective.

  3. CRS says:

    I don’t think that bone will integrate with enamel or even dentin. it seems that you would end up with a large odontoma.

  4. Tuss says:

    I would be really cautious about this – you’ve got calcified (non-bone) tissue, dentine with all its epithelial components and pulpal menchymal tissues – if you can harvest patient bone its probably safer or xenografts

  5. Kim says:

    I am one of BonMaker users after attending their seminar. They are not just selling the device but also provide ATB(Autogenoug Tooth Bone) graft processing service with patient consent & agreement forms, just like other autotransplantation.

    Regarding studies, the history of research about tooth as bone graft materials is almost same as dental implant history. Regarding dental pulp and enamel, they provide a KIT for preparation. It helps to remove enamel and dental pulp. The newes take less than 20 minutes. For me, it takes less than 5 minutes before processing with device. CRS, you absolutely agree with you, but they provide the KIT.

    I have done approximately over 100 cases GBR with BonMaker. I am very satisfied with this device and this biomaterial. I usually place implants after 4 weeks when patient have terrible defect, or just after processing it.

    They also provide block type of graft materials. I ask them to make block bone when I have a big defect. The block has 4 layers with collagen. You do not need any membrane and ti-mesh. The block just stuck with blood clot and periosteum functioned as membrane.

    The best thing is it is just like as autogenous graft material but the resorption degree is about 5%. I am just sharing my experience and I am one of actual users.

  6. PeterFairbairn says:

    Biologically , this does not make sense we need to regenerate bone not merely fill space with something , Blood is all we need with a scaffold . The best most logical solution is a fully Bio-absorbed synthetic ..
    After 3,000 grafts in 13 years with over 99% success that makes sense to me.
    The Body needs Guided BONE REGENERATION , not guided BONE LIKE REPLACEMENT…
    Just a thought.

  7. Kim says:

    As all we do care about patients, I also do carefully choose bone graft material. As we know bone graft material is not just replacing the defects.

    The chemical composition of dentine by 70% inorganic, 20% organic and 10% water. 70% of inorganic components are in the form of calicium hydroxyapatite crystallites. It also has collagen, and 90% of them are type 1 collagen with low crystalline apatite and possibly other calcium phosphate minerals.

    It must be different from shell powder. I am leaving a website link for sharing information with you. There are some clinical trials at I felt like these materiasl stimulated by mechanical loading or stimulation because it came from alveolar bone? I do not have that knowledge to discover these.

  8. CRS says:

    From a purely business standpoint this is a lot of work to replace already available products with minimun time and preparation. What does it cost, the machine and all the special reagents which are consumables? Also what about the issue and liability of cross contamination? I still am concerned about the fact that bone does not adhere to enamel, my experience comes from partial odontectomies and the healing process. Enamel and dentin have a different structure from bone and bone takes longer than four weeks to develop. I try to think about the biology and what you are trying to accomplish. I will follow this product I value being an early adopter, however the biology doesn’t make sense to me. Personally I would not want to assume the sterility issue liability of taking diseased teeth from one patient and processing them with chemicals then placing the treated product back into the patient. But I don’t know if that is what a bone bank does anyway with cadaver bone! I would like to see human studies before trying this one and the cost factor. Thanks for sharing the website was down so I could not gather more info.

    • Phil says:

      This product seems interesting, but of course it requires alot more testing and I agree that I’m not quite sure it’s viable economically-speaking for the US market, which has ample supply of tissue banks for allografts. However, in other places in the world where allograft from tissue banks is not used or is illegal, I guess this product has potential. But, the safety needs to be more guaranteed, which will only come with more time and use. That said, to ask for studies of a bone graft product is a bit facetious.

      I do not believe there are any statistically viable human studies (i.e. large enough study sample with controls etc.) regarding any dental bone graft product on the market, whether allograft, xenograft, or synthetic bone products. Most studies are just done using animals or very small human samples with no adequate control groups and any other basic study design principles. If there are any large scale human studies for bone grafting in dentistry, I’d love to see them. I am willing to bet that not one large scale human study of materials used in dentistry for bone grafting, if it even exists, would past muster with the FDA in terms of showing proven efficacy.

      Basically, the reality is that dentists just use what experience has shown them to be safe and to work, even if there are no viable studies to support any material and absolutely no real biological understanding of how bone regeneration actually occurs with these products. So this notion of needing studies is a straw man argument. Also, since this point was mentioned above by another commentator, the idea that any of the products currently out there are more than just osteoconductive is purely speculative. The only material that is proven to be both osteoconductive and osteoinductive is an autograft. Nearly everything else we use (PRF, could be an exception) is really just osteoconductive.

      The fact of the matter is you can put plaster of paris in a patient’s mouth (and many dentists do, it’s just marketed under a fancier name so nobody thinks of it as plaster of paris), and you’ll get good bone regeneration. So, it’s not far fetched to assume that using a patient’s own teeth, properly treated and disinfected, will regnerate bone. I’d go far as to say that I’d be surprised if a patient’s own teeth didn’t have good regenerative properties, or work at least as well as the many other foreign materials we place in patient’s mouth now to regenerate bone.

      Bone regeneration is very poorly understand on a theoritical level, and practically speaking it remains an art of just using what we know is safe and seems to have worked in the past.

  9. CRS says:

    You know I thought of these posts when I was struggling with a very difficult “atraumatic” surgical removal of #14 upper first molar with fractured root tips as I struggled to remove them while keeping as much alveolar bone behind as a scaffold. First, boy this guy has dense bone the graft should heal well and second perhaps if I leave these roots behind they will be part of the BonMaker graft anyway. My thought being do we have to be concerned with leaving roots behind in implant cases? Guess it is a judgement call, where the root is, pathology etc. actually Salama has a root shell technique in the anterior for thin facial plate. Personally I like to remove all the tooth or gring it out do that there is maximum bone to implant contact for osteointegration, I know from removing implanted teeth bone does not seem to bind to enamel well.

Comments are closed.

This entry was posted in Clinical Questions, Research and News and tagged .