![](images/Newspaper.gif)
Comparative Evalution of G bone (Hydroxyapatite) and G-Graft (Hydroxyapatite with Collagen) as Bone Graft Material in Mandibular III Molar Extraction Socket
ZC48-ZC52
Correspondence
Dr. Vikas Berwal,
Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, PGIDS Rohtak, India.
E-mail: vikasberwal@yahoo.com
Background: Bone grafting is a dynamic phenomenon. It is a surgical procedure that replaces missing bone with material either from patient’s own body, or, an artificial, synthetic or natural substitute. A successful bone graft when applied, heals, becomes incorporated, re-vascularises and eventually assumes the form desired.
Aims and Objective: The main purpose of this present study was to radiologically assess and compare the regenerative potential of hydroxyapatite with Collagen (G-Graft) and hydroxyapatite (G-Bone) and to evaluate the clinical usefulness of these materials to enhance bone healing in third molar extraction sites through bone formation.
Materials and Methods: The study was carried out in the Department of Oral & Maxillofacilal Surgery, patients were divided into three groups. The rationale for assigning the patients to the groups was strictly random: Group I – G-Graft (Hydroxyapatite with Collagen) was used as Bone graft material, Group II – Bone graft material used was G-Bone (Hydroxyapatite), Group III—control group (no grafts was used). Orthopentomogram(OPG) images were taken intra-operatively, just after extraction in the Group III (control), after extraction but before graft placement in Group I & II (study groups) and post-operatively at the end of first month and third month. Bone density of the post-extraction sockets was measured at four random areas through ‘densitometric analysis’ software in the OPG program (Kodak 8000C Digital Panoramic System, Eastman Kodak Company) and an average value was recorded at each review.
Results: The percentage increase in bone density between 1st month & 3rd month was 7.55± 12.43 in Group I (G Graft), 4.41± 5.4859 in Group II (G Bone), while that Group III (control) was found to be -0.82 ± 3.96. The bone density increase was found to be statistically highly significant (p<0.01)) between all groups.
Conclusion: The present study concluded that G-Graft has a definite regenerative potential and is better than G-bone and can be used in bony defects to enhance the bone healing without provoking any significant inflammatory process. The study also indicates that defects treated with G-Graft attain more density initially and that G-Graft enhances bone healing in early stage.