The purpose of this study is to compare the healing aspects of the use of ePTFE membrane alone versus combination treatment of ePTFE membrane and bone grafts on class II furcation defects. Seventeen defects were applied ePTFE membrane alone on mxillary molar buccal class II furcation defects as Group I, seventeen defects were applied ePTFE membrane and bone grafts on maxillary molar buccal class II furcation defects as Group II, twenty-three defects were applied ePTFE membrane alone on mandibular molar buccal class II furcation defects as Group III, twenty defects were applied ePTFE membrane and bone grafts on mandibular molar buccal class II furcation defects as Group IV . Measurements were made to determine clinical attachment level, probing depth, gingival depth, SBI, mobility at baseline, 3, 6, 12 months postoperatively. Additional measurements were made to determine membrane exposure level at surgery, 1, 2, 6 weeks postoperatively. And then healing patterns and postoperative complications were evaluated. The result as follows : There were statistically significant differences in probing depth reduction, clinical attachment gain, mobility reduction at values of 3, 6, 12 months postoperatively compared to values of baseline(p<0.05), whereas no significant differences in SBI and gingival recession. In group II, membrane exposure level was increased at 1, 2, 6 weeks postoperatively compared to value of baseline(p<0.05). There were statistically significant differences in changes of probing depth at 3, 6, 12 months postoperatively in combination groups of ePTFE membrane and bone graft compared to groups of ePTFE membrane alone(p<0.05). The vast majority of cases fall into typical healing and delayed healing response when membranes were removed in all groups. Pain and swelling were common postoperative complications. In conclusion, this study was showed more effective healing aspects in combination treatment of ePTFE membrane and bone graft than ePTFE membrane alone and on mandibular molar class II furcation defects than maxillary molar.