## 3 Results
They were implanted in the mandibular bone to create the base for the prosthesis crown that was fitted later on. The implants were ready to be attached to the abutment, which is the part connecting the implant to the crown. Moreover, it was evident that the graft maintained good stability for the implant, like natural bone. In Figure 5a, it is possible to observe the left mandible reconstruction. The anatomy of the new mandibular bone was highly similar to the healthy geometry (see the left part of the gray volume). This statement is supported by the fact that, if we divide the mandible with a sagittal plane in the center, we can compare the right part with the newly formed bone and check that both parts are symmetrically identical. On the other hand, in the gray part on the right, likely the bone was still regenerating because the natural geometry of the bone was not respected yet. In fact, symmetry, as regards the sagittal plane, has not occurred. * Case #2: The patient responded very well to the implant: 8 months after the bone graft we calculated a volumetric increase of 142 mm\({}^{3}\), with respect to the empty defect and no signs of \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Cases**} & **Region of Interest** & **Volumetric Increase** & \multirow{2}{*}{**Follow up Time**} \\  & **(ROI)** & **[mm\({}^{3}\)]** & \\ \hline Case Two & Dental & 605 & 8 months \\ Case Four & Dental & 1028 & 14 months \\ Case Six & Orthopedic & 1794 & 6 months \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Volumetric increase on cases made with handy customized SB blocks during surgery. inflammation. In the upper dental arch, it was possible to observe the formation of new bone, which did not appear in the first CT (Figure 5b). At that time after 8 months, it was necessary to re-operate to remove the five screws implanted to proceed with the insertion of the dental implants. Next, the abutment was fitted to the implant by means of a screw to allow dental implant anchoring. If we divided the jaw with a sagittal plane, we could observe that the geometry was completely restored after eight months, because the left and the right part were symmetrical. In this case, the patient was ready for the dental implant because the bone thickness needed for the implant had been fully restored. * Case #3: In this case, 6 months after the bone graft implantation, we could already observe the formation of new bone, not present in the first CT, as well as bone resurfacing even in parts where SB was not implanted (Figure 5c). In the upper dental arch, it was possible to detect the presence of the three screws, which ensured the stability of the bone graft. The two grafts could no longer be seen as they have been replaced by one reconstructed bone. Not only bone cells generated bone within SB but also osteogenesis occurred outside the grafts. There was a marked horizontal bone increase, which led to the correct anatomical shape being restored. * Case #4: Follow ups of the patient were performed at different times, 6, 9, and 14 months, respectively. After 6 months post-surgery, the grafts appear to have filled the lack of bone (image not shown), with four screws stabilizing the bone grafts. The second follow up, 9 months after surgery, was performed to check whether the patient had complications. The tissue appears healthy and free of inflammation, and the graft was fully integrated into the patient's bone. At this point, the dentist could remove the screws that ensured stability. After 14 months, SB was completely replaced by the patient's bone. In Figure 5d, it is possible to observe how the bone was regenerated in all four points where SB was implanted. In the two central parts, where the lack of bone was more significant, the growth of the new bone was greater than in the other two parts. Notably, the grafts grew symmetrically and restored the natural anatomy of the maxillary bone.