Abstract: Background: Periodontal regeneration aims to restore the natural structure of the periodontium, therefore improving the long-term stability and function of the affected teeth. Traditional bone graft materials such as allografts, autografts, xenografts, and alloplasts serve as a scaffold for new bone formation and are employed for the regeneration of osseous defects. Autogenous dentin graft (ADG), which is characterized by both osteoinductive and osteoconductive properties, is a biomaterial that mimics the mineral and organic composition of alveolar bone, whereas anorganic deproteinized bovine graft, a xenograft, is renowned for its osteoconductive properties. The current study investigates the comparative clinical and radiographic effectiveness of ADG versus xenograft in intrabony defects. Aim: The present study aims to compare the clinical and radiographic effectiveness of ADG and xenograft in managing periodontal defects. Materials and Methods: Patients with Stage III and Stage IV periodontitis were selected, and Phase I therapy was performed. After Phase I (nonsurgical periodontal therapy), re-evaluation was carried out, and patients with probing pocket depth (PPD) ≥5 mm and an intrabony defect (two-walled or three-walled) were selected for the study. 24 surgical sites were selected for the study and were divided into two groups of 12 sites each (test group – ADG and control group – xenograft). The sites were assessed for radiographic parameters (bone fill BF, bone crest change BCC, defect resolution DR, and relative bone mineral density indicator RBMD) using cone beam computed tomography at Visit-1 (screening) and at 6 months (6-month follow-up). The sites were assessed for clinical parameters (gingival bleeding index GBI, probing pocket depth PPD and clinical attachment level CAL) at baseline (day of the surgery) and at 6 months (6-month follow-up). Results: On evaluation, clinical parameters (PPD and CAL) showed significant results from baseline to 6 months on intragroup comparison. However, no significant difference was seen on intergroup comparison. In intergroup comparison, radiographic evaluation showed a higher BF in the ADG group (test group), while no difference was seen in BCC, DR, and RBMD parameters. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, ADG can be a promising alternative to xenograft in periodontal intrabony defects. However, larger randomized controlled trials with longer follow-up are necessary to validate these findings.
Anusuya et al. (Thu,) studied this question.