1 of 39

2 of 39

Bone Grafting Problem

3 of 39

Structural cost drivers

  • Generic grafts:

Complex surgery, high operator skill

  • External labs:

Long turnaround, no intraoperative adjustment

  • Shipping & logistics:

Delays, contamination, loss risk

  • Non-custom fit:

Higher malpractice risk, expensive chair time

  • Uncertain outcomes:

~10% failure / resorption

OsseoPrint3D removes entire cost layers

Chairside fabrication (no lab, no shipping):� Lower malpractice potential

Custom-fit graft from patient CT:� Created chairside; adjustable and reprintable

Single-visit workflow:� Less chair time → direct cost savings

Shorter surgery time:� Reduced overhead

Better surgical outcomes:� Literature shows near ~100% success rates

OsseoPrint3D converts bone grafting into a predictable, in-office procedure

4 of 39

  • Multiple planning visits

  • Long surgical time

�Non-custom grafts require extra effort

to avoid critical anatomical structures�(sinus cavities, nerves, blood vessels)

5 of 39

Traditional bone grafting

  • Technique-sensitive procedures
  • Success rate (complex cases): ~65–80%
  • Reported complication rates: ~20–35%
  • Typically limited to oral & maxillofacial specialists
  • Steep learning curve
  • Risk of intraoperative graft failure or contamination
  • No immediate replacement surgery may be aborted
  • Prolonged anesthesia increases systemic and malpractice risk

OsseoPrint3D (Answer)

Custom-fit graft simplifies surgical approach

Success rates improved to near 100%

Reduced complication risk

Technology-driven, less operator-dependent outcomes

Enables adoption by general dentists

Workflow-based learning, less advanced surgical training

Traditional bone grafting (Problem)

  • Technique-sensitive procedure
  • Lower success rate in complex cases ~65–80%
  • High complication rates ~20–35%
  • Outcomes depend on surgeon experience
  • Limited to oral & maxillofacial specialists
  • Steep learning curve

6 of 39

OSSEOPRINT3D REDUCES RISK THROUGH PLANNING, PRECISION, AND PREDICTABILITY

WHY TRADITIONAL BONE GRAFTING CARRIES HIGH LEGAL RISK

Traditional bone grafting (Risk)

  • High complication rates ~20–35%
  • Risk to critical anatomy

Inferior alveolar nerve, sinus, adjacent structures

  • Judgment-dependent surgery
  • Unpredictable outcomes
  • High legal exposure

OsseoPrint3D:

CT-based, pre-planned workflow

Reduced intraoperative decision-making

Enables adoption by general dentists

Less advanced surgical training required

7 of 39

Scaffold-based augmentation delivers the highest predictability

and success rates by simplifying surgical execution.

Block bone grafting

High variability, complex execution

Particulate bone + GBR

Operator-dependent, inconsistent fit

Scaffold-based augmentation

Patient-specific 3D-printed scaffold

Ready-to-place geometry

Vertical bone augmentation is the holy grail of implant dentistry

Traditional bone grafting outcomes vary widely

OsseoPrint3D makes outcomes predictable

8 of 39

9 of 39

10 of 39

11 of 39

OsseoPrint3D uses a proprietary, aseptic, chairside 3D printer to fabricate patient-specific bone grafts through a fast, guided clinical workflow.

Guaranteed aseptic fabrication at point-of-care via single-use sterile cartridge

and print plate

Single-purpose 3D printer engineered for intraoperative clinical use

Fast fabrication — custom graft produced in under 1 hour

Fully integrated with OsseoPrint3D planning software

No external lab, shipping, or third-party manufacturing

12 of 39

13 of 39

14 of 39

15 of 39

Dental Bone Grafting Cost Overview

16 of 39

The entire graft design and surgical approach are planned in the software, reducing reliance on advanced surgical experience.

Guided, step-by-step planning workflow� Draft graft design created in ~15 minutes� No freehand sculpting or intraoperative decision-making� Procedure standardized across operators� Lower learning curve compared to traditional grafting� Zero-abort fail-safe: if a graft is dropped, contaminated, or damaged, the procedure does not need to be canceled — a new sterile, patient-specific graft can be printed chairside in ~15 minutes

17 of 39

18 of 39

Digital “surgical twin” creates a permanent safety record, lowering

malpractice exposure if outcomes are questioned

19 of 39

20 of 39

21 of 39

22 of 39

23 of 39

24 of 39

25 of 39

26 of 39

27 of 39

28 of 39

Sources

Polydioxanone (PDO) Implants

Porosity of 3D Biomaterial Scaffolds

Optimal Pore Size for Bone Regeneration

Interconnected Scaffold Architecture

29 of 39

30 of 39

31 of 39

Market Overview

Bone regeneration is a large, global market driven by dental implants and aging populations.

☆ A significant portion of procedures are non-load-bearing and procedural in nature.

☆ These cases are constrained by workflow complexity, cost, and lab dependency — not demand.

Market Size Breakdown

TAM: ~$7.8B — Global bone regeneration market.

SAM: ~$1.6B (~20% of TAM) addressable today (non-load-bearing procedures)

SOM $325M (early) limited by production scale and rollout.

Market SIze Calculations

Market Size Data

32 of 39

33 of 39

34 of 39

35 of 39

36 of 39

37 of 39

38 of 39

Finishing and Locking OsseoPrint System

Pre FDA

FDA submission

and approva

Pre FDA

tests/studies

39 of 39

Thank you!

Questions are welcome