Histological Comparison of Bone Regeneration Using Two Putty Bone Grafts in Surgically Created Intrabony Defect in...

This study aimed to histologically evaluate and compare the bone regenerative potential of two grafting materials, demineralized bone matrix (DBM) putty and nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite (ncHA) putty, applied to surgically created intrabony defects in a rat's model, in conjunction with the decortication technique.

Thirty rats were included. A surgical bone defect measuring W × L × D; 2 × 2 × 1.5 mm with decortication was prepared by small round bur, and the rats were randomly divided into three groups (10 rats each), group I (control): Defect induction and decortication, group II: Defect induction and decortication then, ncHA putty insertion, group III: Defect induction and decortication then DBM allograft putty insertion. Five rats from each group were euthanized at 2 and 4 weeks, respectively. Maxilla excised for histological processing and evaluation using H&E stains to assess the percentage area of newly formed bone. Data were statistically analyzed by one-way ANOVA and post hoc test.

The mean ± SD values at 2 and at 4 weeks were (1.05 ± 0.07, 1.25 ± 0.04) for groups I, group II (8.14 ± 0.16, 15.94 ± 0.21), and group III (8.20 ± 0.25, 13.40 ± 0.55), respectively. Both experimental groups showed significantly greater bone formation than the control at both intervals (p < 0.001). At 4 weeks, group II (ncHA) recorded higher bone regeneration compared to group III DBM (p < 0.001), while the control group showed only a slight increase.

Both DBM and ncHA putties enhanced bone regeneration, with ncHA showing superior performance at 4 weeks.

Intrabony defects are a clinical challenge, and selecting an effective graft material is crucial for achieving predictable periodontal regeneration. How to cite this article: Dao AM, Abdulrahman M, Mira ES, et al. Histological Comparison of Bone Regeneration Using Two Putty Bone Grafts in Surgically Created Intrabony Defect in Rats with Intramarrow Penetration. J Contemp Dent Pract 2025;26(10):938-944.