Comparison of nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite and synthetic resorbable hydroxyapatite graft in the treatment of intrabony defects: A clinical and radiographic study

Abstract

Background:The aim of this study is to compare, clinically and radiographically, the effectiveness of nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite (NHA) and synthetic resorbable hydroxyapatite (HA) in the treatment of intrabony defects.Materials and Methods:Ten subjects with bilateral defects, with probing depth (PD) 6-9 mm and radiographic evidence of an intraosseous component ≥4 mm participated in the present study. Subjects were allocated randomly to treatment with NHA (test group) or HA (control group). At baseline, 3 and 6 months after surgery, the following clinical parameters were recorded: Plaque index, gingival index, PD, relative attachment level (RAL), and radiographic reduction in intrabony defect.Results:At 6 months following therapy, the test group showed a reduction in mean PD from 6.4 ± 0.843 to 3.3 ± 0.8232 mm and a change in mean RAL from 12.9 ± 1.197 to 10.1 ± 0.7378 mm, whereas in the control group the mean PD decreased from 7.65 ± 1.8566 to 3.9 ± 1.1005 mm, and mean RAL decreased from 13.9 ± 0.9944 to 10.7 ± 0.6749 mm. On comparison of the mean difference in probing depth between the two groups after the unpaired t-test was applied at baseline, 3 months and 6 months, scores were found to be statistically non-significant (P > 0.01).Conclusion:The results of the present study indicate that both NHA and conventional HA led to the improvement of clinical and radiographic parameters over the course of the study. However, the test group did not show any significant improvement over the control group.

Comparing Nanohydroxyapatite Graft and Other Bone Grafts in the Repair of Periodontal Infrabony Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Except for one study, which used a parallel study design [ 52 ], each experiment used a split-mouth design. Five out of seven studies used synthetic BGs [ 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 ], whereas one study used autogenous BG [ 57 ] and another study used xenogenic graft [ 58 ]. The maximum follow-up time varied among the included trials, ranging from 6 months in five trials to 9 and 12 months in the other two, respectively [ 52 ].…”

“…The maximum follow-up time varied among the included trials, ranging from 6 months in five trials to 9 and 12 months in the other two, respectively [ 52 ]. Four studies reported using post-operative antibiotics [ 52 , 55 , 57 , 58 ], whereas three studies did not disclose the use of post-operative antibiotics [ 53 , 54 , 56 ].…”

“…Similarly, smokers’ reaction to periodontal therapy is less advantageous than non-smokers’ [ 70 ], and smokers have lower CAL gains for regeneration treatment as compared to non-smokers. The majority of the research followed comparable post-operative procedures; however, antibiotics were prescribed in four trials [ 52 , 55 , 57 , 58 ], and three studies gave no data on any specific post-operative measures [ 53 , 54 , 56 ]. The benefits of post-operative antibiotics have not been evaluated because the bulk of research utilised post-operative antibiotics.…”

Platelet Rich Fibrin Combined with Nano Crystalline Hydroxyappatite in Treatment of Grade II Mandibular Furcation Defect

“…Bone substitutes in the form of Nano hydroxyapatite can be used successfully to fill osseous defect as it has advantages like close contact with surrounding tissues, quick resorption characteristics and large number of molecules on the surface (16) .…”

Main properties of nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite as a bone graft material in treatment of periodontal defects. A review of literature

“…Bansal et al revealed the application of n-HA can improve clinical and radiographic parameters in the treatment of periodontal intrabony defect [50]. Elgendy et al compared clinical and radiographic outcomes of nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite with or without PRF membranes in the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects and concluded n-HA is a suitable bone substitute in the periodontal treatment of intrabony defect.…”