Soft and Hard Tissue Healing Following Alveolar Ridge Preservation of Mandibular Third Molar Extraction Socket Filled With Auto Tooth Bone Graft or Alloplastic Graft

Overview

This study compared two bone graft materials: 1. Auto Tooth Bone (ATB) (made from the patient's own extracted tooth) and 2. EthOss® a synthetic alternative. This is to see how well they prevent bone and gum damage after lower wisdom tooth removal. In this split-mouth trial, participants had both lower wisdom teeth removed, with one socket receiving ATB and the other receiving EthOss®. Over a 24-week follow-up period, researchers tracked patient clinically on their comfort, gum healing, and new bone growth using X-rays. The study found that both materials performed similarly and showing no significant differences in pain, swelling, complications, or gum healing. While there was a statistical difference in final bone depth. Both grafts successfully stimulated new bone growth, proving that ATB and EthOss® are equally safe, reliable, and effective options for supporting recovery after wisdom tooth surgery.

Surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars may lead to complications that include periodontal defects at the second molar. Alveolar socket preservation with graft material can reduce this complication. This study aims to assess the soft and hard tissue healing of the surgical sites following the removal of impacted mandibular third molars with alveolar socket preservation using auto tooth bone graft (ATB) or EthOss® alloplastic graft and comparing for any difference between both grafts. This is a split-mouth, double blinded, randomized controlled study. Participants underwent surgical removal of bilateral impacted mandibular third molars with either socket filled with ATB or EthOss® alloplastic graft. The participants were reviewed 1 week and 4 weeks post-operative for signs of graft reaction/rejection. Periodontal assessments were performed at post-operative week 12 and 24 to assess the soft tissue healing. Radiological assessment was done at post-operative week 24 to assess bone depth. There was no significant difference between ATB and EthOss® graft in the healing of the soft tissue adjacent to the sockets, post-operative sequelae (pain, trismus and facial swelling) or post-operative complications. However, a statistically significant difference was observed in bone depth within both groups. The healing outcomes and bone quality achieved with ATB and EthOss® are comparable. Both materials have demonstrated effective osteoconductive properties, making them reliable materials for bone regeneration. This equivalency in clinical performance supports the use of either material as viable alternatives for bone regeneration procedures with predictable results.