A Clinical Evaluation Of Efficacy Of Xenograft And Guided Tissue Regeneration Membrane In The Management Of Mandibular Grade Ii Furcation Defects:A Comparative Study.

Abstract

 INTRODUCTION: Restoring the periodontium affected by furcation involvement poses a significant challenge in periodontal therapy. The complex anatomy of the furcation area requires specialized instruments known as furcation curettes for effective treatment. While Grade II mandibular furcation defects are more manageable, several techniques and materials have been employed to address them, though outcomes have been only moderately successful.

AIM: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the surgical results of grade II furcation therapy using either xenograft alone or in combination with a GTR membrane.

METHODS: In this prospective randomized interventional trial, 18 patients (with 18 defects) exhibiting Grade II mandibular furcation defects were included. The patients were divided into two groups: Group A, comprising 6 patients with 9 defects, underwent treatment with xenograft alone; Group B, comprising 6 patients with 9 defects, underwent treatment with xenograft as a graft along with a Guided Tissue Regeneration membrane. Various clinical parameters, including Plaque Index (PI), Probing Depth (PD), Relative Vertical Clinical Attachment Level (RVCAL), Relative Horizontal Clinical Attachment Level (RHCAL), and the amount of Bone fill using CBCT, were evaluated at baseline and six months postoperatively. Group comparisons were conducted using the ANOVA test, while the paired t-test was employed to assess mean values within the groups.

RESULTS -The study results indicated that, with the exception of Probing Pocket Depth (PD) and Depth of Defect Fill, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of other parameters. Initially, the Probing Depth between the groups did not show statistical significance (5.73 ± 0.79 in Group A, 6.18 ± 0.75 in Group B); however, after 6 months, a significant difference was observed (1.73 ± 0.79 in Group A, 1.36 ± 0.50 in Group B). Similarly, the depth of the defect did not significantly differ between the groups at baseline (3.67 ± 0.44 in Group A, 3.95 ± 0.70 in Group B), but after 6 months, a significant difference was noted (1.51 ± 0.34 in Group A, 1.26 ± 0.26 in Group B)

CONCLUSION: Both xenograft alone (Group A) and xenograft combined with a Guided Tissue Regeneration membrane (Group B) were found to be biocompatible with the tissues. Improvement was evident in all parameters assessed across all three groups, with Group B demonstrating superior results compared to Group A.