Comparative evaluation of bovine derived hydroxyapatite and synthetic hydroxyapatite graft in bone regeneration of human maxillary cystic defects: A clinico-radiological study

Introduction: Bone grafts are frequently used in the treatment of bone defects. Bone harvesting can cause postoperative complications and sometimes does not provide a sufficient quantity of bone. Therefore, synthetic biomaterials have been investigated as an alternative to autogenous bone grafts.
Aim and Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare bovine derived hydroxyapatite (BHA) and synthetic hydroxyapatite (SHA) graft material as bone graft substitute in maxillary cystic bony defects. Patients were analyzed by computerized densitometric study and digital radiography.
Materials and Methods: In this study, 12 patients in each group were included randomly after clinical and radiological evaluation. The integration of hydroxyapatite was assessed with mean bone density, surgical site margin, and radiological bone formation characteristics, of the successful graft cases using computer densitometry and radio-visiograph. Statistical analysis was carried out using Mann-Whitney U-test, Wilcoxon matched pairs test and paired t-test.
Results: By the end of 24 ^th week, the grafted defects radiologically and statistically showed similar volumes of bone formation. However, the significant changes observed in the formation of bone and merging of material and surgical site margin at 1 ^st week to 1 ^st month. The results were significant and correlating with all the parameters showing the necessity of the grafting for early bone formation. However, the bone formation pattern is different in both BHA and SHA group at 3 ^rd month interval with significant P value.
Conclusion: Both BHA and SHA graft materials are biocompatible for filling bone defects, showing less resorption and enhanced bone formation with similar efficacy. Our study showed maximum bone healing within 12 weeks of grafting of defects. The BHA is economical; however, price difference between the two is very nominal.