Background/Objectives: During alveolar cleft grafting, the use of autogenous cancellous bone harvested from the iliac crest is still considered the gold standard. Due to the risk of donor-site morbidity and excessive graft resorption, alternative grafting materials (e.g., intraoral bone, xenografts) are being tested. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of using an autologous tooth-derived graft material and iliac crest cancellous bone in the reconstruction of the alveolar cleft in patients with a unilateral cleft lip and palate. Methods: A total of 21 patients with a unilateral cleft lip and palate, who underwent alveolar bone grafting between 2020 and 2023 were included in the study. In 11 cases, the donor site was the iliac crest; in the rest of the cases, deciduous teeth were harvested, processed, and used as an autologous particulate graft material for alveolar reconstruction. The mean follow-up time was 30.0 months, CBCT scans were taken, and the results were compared based on the ranking system published by Stasiak et al. Results: The Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed that the amount of bone on the cleft side was significantly less than that on the contralateral non-cleft side (ATB: p = 0.002, iliac crest: p = 0.005). The Mann–Whitney U test showed that there were no significant differences in bone quantity on the cleft side between the two groups (U = 47.5, p = 0.617). Conclusions: The use of ATB might be a feasible alternative to autologous bone during alveolar cleft reconstruction. This type of graft shows long-term stability, which is comparable to the bone harvested from the iliac crest.

Blue^®M is an oral biomaterial product line based on active oxygen-generating formulations containing sodium perborate, honey-derived glucose oxidase, and lactoferrin, available as an oral gel, mouthwash, and toothpaste. This narrative review summarizes the human clinical evidence by product type and clinical indication, with a study-level risk of bias assessment. A structured search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar, completed on 27 September 2026, identified 35 eligible human clinical studies. Risk of bias was formally assessed with the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for 32 randomized trials, including split-mouth designs, and with ROBINS-I for three non-randomized comparative studies. The oral gel was mainly investigated as an adjunct to scaling and root planing and as a topical treatment for postoperative wounds. Periodontal findings were heterogeneous: probing pocket depth and attachment-level gains were reported in several small split-mouth trials with some concerns or serious risk, whereas no statistically significant between-group benefit was detected in the only trial that was at low risk of bias. Several small studies reported more favorable short-term pain and re-epithelialization outcomes than a conventional periodontal dressing, predominantly at high risk of bias. Mouthwash studies showed no statistically significant between-group differences compared with chlorhexidine, while toothpaste studies showed no consistent superiority over reference products. Overall, the available evidence, weighted by risk of bias, does not demonstrate superiority of Blue^®M over established treatments; it may be regarded as a potentially useful adjunct whose comparative clinical value remains uncertain. Adequately powered randomized trials with a blinded outcome assessment, registered protocols, and active comparators are needed.