Radiological Comparative Study Between Conventional and Nano Hydroxyapatite With Platelet-Rich Fibrin (PRF) Membranes for Their Effects on Alveolar Bone Density

Background: The entry of the concept of nanotechnologies into the field of biomaterials has improved the results of their use in regenerative therapies based on the principles of tissue engineering, due to its improvement of the physical properties of materials manufactured in this way, so it has become possible to produce particles of hydroxyapatite in nano sizes. Aim of the study: This study will evaluate the efficacy of applying nanohydroxyapatite paste and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) as a barrier membrane in comparison with traditional hydroxyapatite (a powder consisting of macro-sized particles) and PRF as a barrier membrane in symmetrically extracted alveoli of the mandible. Materials and methods: The research sample consisted of 40 lower alveoli (symmetrical) of the extracted teeth. The study samples were divided randomly into two groups. Group 1: A paste of nanohydroxyapatite with PRF as a barrier membrane was applied to one side of the extraction. Group 2: Hydroxyapatite powder with PRF as a barrier membrane was applied to the alveolus from the opposite side of Group 1 (the opposite side of the extraction). Three radiographs were performed by cone beam conventional tomography (CBCT) in three consecutive periods to conduct the radiological study (T0: immediately after extraction and grafting, T1: after three months, T2: after six months). Results: The mean of the radiographic bone density of the hydroxyapatite powder group at time T0 is 824.36 HU with a standard deviation of ±277.29 HU, and at time T1 is 1119.93 HU with a standard deviation of ±306.93 HU, and at time T2 is 1074.14 HU with a standard deviation of ±223.62 HU, with statistically significant differences when comparing the amount of change in radiographic bone density at time T0 and T1 with P < 0.05, and at time T0 and T2 with P < 0.05, but there were no significant differences when comparing the amount of change in radiographic bone density in T1 and T2 times with P > 0.05. The mean radiographic bone density of the nanohydroxyapatite paste group at time T0 is 629.88 HU with a standard deviation of ±193.64 HU, and at time T1 is 960.67 HU with a standard deviation of ±256.88 HU, and at time T2 is 743.87 HU with a standard deviation of ±180.96 HU, and in the time T0 and T1 with P < 0.05, and in the time T0 and T2 with P < 0.05, and in the time T1 and T2 with P < 0.05. Statistically, significant differences have been found between bone density change T1, T2 in the nanohydroxyapatite paste group and bone density change T1, T2 in the hydroxyapatite powder group P<0.05, which expresses a greater loss of density in the nanohydroxyapatite group, and thus the resorption of the bone graft and the placement of new bone tissue. Conclusion: Within the limits of our study, the results demonstrated that the use of traditional hydroxyapatite powder and nanohydroxyapatite paste increases the radiographic bone density, nanohydroxyapatite paste has a greater absorbency after 3 months compared with traditional hydroxyapatite powder which helps replace it by natural bone tissue.