BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the additional benefits provided by the incorporation of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) into a regenerative protocol consisting of bovine porous bone mineral (BPBM) and guided tissue regeneration (GTR) in the treatment of intrabony defects in humans. METHODS: Twenty-three paired intrabony defects were surgically treated using a split-mouth design. Defects were treated with BPBM/GTR/PRP (experimental group) or with BPBM/GTR (control group). The clinical parameters evaluated included changes in probing depth, clinical attachment level, and defect fill as revealed by reentry surgeries at 6 months. RESULTS: Preoperative probing depths, attachment levels, and transoperative bone measurements were similar for the two groups. Post-surgical measurements taken at 6 months revealed that both treatment modalities resulted in a significant decrease in probing depth, gain in clinical attachment, and bone fill of the defects compared to baseline. Postoperative differences observed between the two groups were 0.72 +/- 0.36 mm at buccal sites and 0.90 +/- 0.32 mm at lingual sites for probing depth, 0.82 +/- 0.41 mm at buccal sites and 0.78 +/- 0.38 at lingual sites for gain in clinical attachment, and 0.85 +/- 0.36 mm at buccal sites and 0.94 +/- 0.42 mm at lingual sites for defect fill, all favoring the experimental sites. However, none of the differences were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations related to using a small sample size, PRP did not significantly augment the effects of BPBM and GTR in promoting the clinical resolution of intrabony defects.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the additional benefits provided by the incorporation of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) into a regenerative protocol consisting of bovine porous bone mineral (BPBM) and guided tissue regeneration (GTR) in the treatment of intrabony defects in humans. METHODS: Twenty-three paired intrabony defects were surgically treated using a split-mouth design. Defects were treated with BPBM/GTR/PRP (experimental group) or with BPBM/GTR (control group). The clinical parameters evaluated included changes in probing depth, clinical attachment level, and defect fill as revealed by reentry surgeries at 6 months. RESULTS: Preoperative probing depths, attachment levels, and transoperative bone measurements were similar for the two groups. Post-surgical measurements taken at 6 months revealed that both treatment modalities resulted in a significant decrease in probing depth, gain in clinical attachment, and bone fill of the defects compared to baseline. Postoperative differences observed between the two groups were 0.72 +/- 0.36 mm at buccal sites and 0.90 +/- 0.32 mm at lingual sites for probing depth, 0.82 +/- 0.41 mm at buccal sites and 0.78 +/- 0.38 at lingual sites for gain in clinical attachment, and 0.85 +/- 0.36 mm at buccal sites and 0.94 +/- 0.42 mm at lingual sites for defect fill, all favoring the experimental sites. However, none of the differences were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations related to using a small sample size, PRP did not significantly augment the effects of BPBM and GTR in promoting the clinical resolution of intrabony defects.