BACKGROUND: The topical use of platelet concentrates is recent, and its efficiency remains controversial. The present study aims to explore the clinical and radiographic effectiveness of autologous platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the treatment of intrabony defects in patients with chronic periodontitis. METHODS:Ninety intrabony defects were treated with either autologous PRF with open-flap debridement or autologous PRP with open-flap debridement or open-flap debridement alone. Clinical and radiologic parameters, such as probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), intrabony defect depth, and percentage defect fill, were recorded at baseline and 9 months postoperatively. RESULTS:Mean PD reduction and CAL gain were greater in PRF (3.77 ± 1.19 and 3.17 ± 1.29 mm) and PRP (3.77 ± 1.07 and 2.93 ± 1.08 mm) groups than the control group (2.97 ± 0.93 and 2.83 ± 0.91 mm). Furthermore, significantly greater percentage of mean bone fill was found in the PRF (55.41% ± 11.39%) and PRP (56.85% ± 14.01%) groups compared with the control (1.56% ± 15.12%) group. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limit of the present study, there was similar PD reduction, CAL gain, and bone fill at sites treated with PRF or PRP with conventional open-flap debridement. Because PRF is less time consuming and less technique sensitive, it may seem a better treatment option than PRP. However, long-term, multicenter randomized, controlled clinical trials will be required to know their clinical and radiographic effects on bone regeneration.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The topical use of platelet concentrates is recent, and its efficiency remains controversial. The present study aims to explore the clinical and radiographic effectiveness of autologous platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the treatment of intrabony defects in patients with chronic periodontitis. METHODS: Ninety intrabony defects were treated with either autologous PRF with open-flap debridement or autologous PRP with open-flap debridement or open-flap debridement alone. Clinical and radiologic parameters, such as probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), intrabony defect depth, and percentage defect fill, were recorded at baseline and 9 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Mean PD reduction and CAL gain were greater in PRF (3.77 ± 1.19 and 3.17 ± 1.29 mm) and PRP (3.77 ± 1.07 and 2.93 ± 1.08 mm) groups than the control group (2.97 ± 0.93 and 2.83 ± 0.91 mm). Furthermore, significantly greater percentage of mean bone fill was found in the PRF (55.41% ± 11.39%) and PRP (56.85% ± 14.01%) groups compared with the control (1.56% ± 15.12%) group. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limit of the present study, there was similar PD reduction, CAL gain, and bone fill at sites treated with PRF or PRP with conventional open-flap debridement. Because PRF is less time consuming and less technique sensitive, it may seem a better treatment option than PRP. However, long-term, multicenter randomized, controlled clinical trials will be required to know their clinical and radiographic effects on bone regeneration.
Authors: Richard J Miron; Giovanni Zucchelli; Michael A Pikos; Maurice Salama; Samuel Lee; Vincent Guillemette; Masako Fujioka-Kobayashi; Mark Bishara; Yufeng Zhang; Hom-Lay Wang; Fatiha Chandad; Cleopatra Nacopoulos; Alain Simonpieri; Alexandre Amir Aalam; Pietro Felice; Gilberto Sammartino; Shahram Ghanaati; Maria A Hernandez; Joseph Choukroun Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2017-05-27 Impact factor: 3.573