BACKGROUND: The aim of the present randomized, double-masked, clinical trial was to compare platelet-rich plasma (PRP) combined with a demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft (DFDBA) to DFDBA mixed with a saline solution in the treatment of human intrabony defects. METHODS:Sixty interproximal intrabony osseous defects in 60 healthy, non-smoking subjects diagnosed with chronic periodontitis were treated in this study. Thirty subjects each were randomly assigned to the test group (PRP + DFDBA) or the control group (DFDBA + saline). Clinical and radiographic measurements were made at baseline and at the 12-month evaluation. RESULTS: Compared to baseline, the 12-month results indicated that both treatment modalities resulted in significant changes in all clinical parameters (gingival index, bleeding on probing, probing depth, clinical attachment level, and gingival recession; P <0.001) and radiographic parameters (hard tissue fill and bone depth reduction; P <0.001). However, the test group exhibited statistically significantly greater changes compared to the control group in probing depth reduction (4.3 +/- 1.7 mm versus 2.6 +/- 2.2 mm; P <0.05) and clinical attachment gain (3.5 +/- 2.1 mm versus 2.3 +/- 2.4 mm; P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with a combination of PRP and DFDBA led to a significantly greater clinical improvement in intrabony periodontal defects compared to DFDBA with saline. No statistically significant differences were observed in the hard tissue response between the two treatment groups, which confirmed that PRP had no effect on hard tissue fill or gain in new hard tissue formation.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The aim of the present randomized, double-masked, clinical trial was to compare platelet-rich plasma (PRP) combined with a demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft (DFDBA) to DFDBA mixed with a saline solution in the treatment of human intrabony defects. METHODS: Sixty interproximal intrabony osseous defects in 60 healthy, non-smoking subjects diagnosed with chronic periodontitis were treated in this study. Thirty subjects each were randomly assigned to the test group (PRP + DFDBA) or the control group (DFDBA + saline). Clinical and radiographic measurements were made at baseline and at the 12-month evaluation. RESULTS: Compared to baseline, the 12-month results indicated that both treatment modalities resulted in significant changes in all clinical parameters (gingival index, bleeding on probing, probing depth, clinical attachment level, and gingival recession; P <0.001) and radiographic parameters (hard tissue fill and bone depth reduction; P <0.001). However, the test group exhibited statistically significantly greater changes compared to the control group in probing depth reduction (4.3 +/- 1.7 mm versus 2.6 +/- 2.2 mm; P <0.05) and clinical attachment gain (3.5 +/- 2.1 mm versus 2.3 +/- 2.4 mm; P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with a combination of PRP and DFDBA led to a significantly greater clinical improvement in intrabony periodontal defects compared to DFDBA with saline. No statistically significant differences were observed in the hard tissue response between the two treatment groups, which confirmed that PRP had no effect on hard tissue fill or gain in new hard tissue formation.