Comparison between a conventional technique and two bone regeneration techniques in periradicular surgery

The aim was to demonstrate the efficacy of two materials for bone regeneration during periradicular surgery and their effects on the healing of periapical tissues.Twenty-eight patients (30 surgical sites) were selected and distributed into three groups:group A, conventional technique; group B, conventional technique plus nonbioabsorbable GoreTex R Augmentation membrane; and group C, conventional technique plus the same membrane placed over a synthetic bioactive resorbable graft of a hydroxylapatite (OsteoGen) product in the bony defect. Clinical and radiological evaluations were completed immediately prior to surgery, a week later and every 3 months after surgery up to 12 months. Two histological evaluations were performed (at the beginning and at 12 months).The results showed complete clinical and radiographic healing (eight cases) for group C, with histologic evidence of trabecular bone in all cases. For group B, six out of nine cases showed complete radiographic healing, incomplete in one case and uncertain in two cases, with histologic evidence of trabecular bone in five out of eight cases, scar tissue in one case and granuloma in two cases. For group A, there was complete radiographic healing in four out of nine cases, incomplete in four and unsuccessful in one case, with evidence of granuloma in four out of eight, scar tissue in two cases and trabecular bone in two cases.It was concluded that the conventional technique was less predictable in its healing response during the 12 months of this study. The use of bone regeneration materials, such as nonbioabsorbablemembranes and resorbable hydroxylapatite improved the predictability of clinical, radiographic and histological healing.