OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether the use of platelet rich fibrin (PRF) improved the healing of extraction sockets. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 20 patients with bilateral soft tissue impacted mandibular third molars were included in this study. The left and right third molars were extracted during the same session. Subsequently, the PRF membrane was randomly administered to one of the extraction sockets, whereas the contralateral sockets were left without treatment. On postoperative 30. and 90. days, panoramic images and bone scintigrams were taken to evaluate the bone healing between PRF-treated and non-PRF-treated sockets. Also, periodontal evaluation was performed in the same control sessions. Dependent group t test for paired samples was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The average increase in technetium-99m methylene diphosphonate uptake as an indication of enhanced bone healing did not differ significantly between PRF-treated and non-PRF-treated sockets 30 and 90 days postoperatively. Radio-opacity that can show the bone healing on panoramic images were measured by Image J programme and they did not differ significantly. Also periodontal values did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS:PRF might not lead to enhanced bone healing in impacted mandibular third molar extraction sockets 30 and 90 days after surgery. It is thought that PRF has the potential characteristics of an autologous fibrin matrix and can accelerate the healing. To better understand the effects of PRF on healing, further research is warranted with larger sample sizes.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether the use of platelet rich fibrin (PRF) improved the healing of extraction sockets. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 20 patients with bilateral soft tissue impacted mandibular third molars were included in this study. The left and right third molars were extracted during the same session. Subsequently, the PRF membrane was randomly administered to one of the extraction sockets, whereas the contralateral sockets were left without treatment. On postoperative 30. and 90. days, panoramic images and bone scintigrams were taken to evaluate the bone healing between PRF-treated and non-PRF-treated sockets. Also, periodontal evaluation was performed in the same control sessions. Dependent group t test for paired samples was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The average increase in technetium-99m methylene diphosphonate uptake as an indication of enhanced bone healing did not differ significantly between PRF-treated and non-PRF-treated sockets 30 and 90 days postoperatively. Radio-opacity that can show the bone healing on panoramic images were measured by Image J programme and they did not differ significantly. Also periodontal values did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS: PRF might not lead to enhanced bone healing in impacted mandibular third molar extraction sockets 30 and 90 days after surgery. It is thought that PRF has the potential characteristics of an autologous fibrin matrix and can accelerate the healing. To better understand the effects of PRF on healing, further research is warranted with larger sample sizes.
Complex tissue remodeling requires the coordination of various physiological processes, which involve molecular signals that are mediated primarily by cytokines and growth factors (1). Platelets contain various growth factors and cytokines that play a key role in inflammation and bone healing (2). Given these physiological traits, the use of platelet concentrates has become increasingly popular during last 15 years. The initial development of platelet concentrate technology in 1996 offered simplified and optimized production protocols for a new type of fibrin-adhesive concentrated platelet-rich plasma (cPRP) (3). After 5 years, a second generation platelet concentrate named platelet rich fibrin (PRF) was introduced in France (3).The advantages of PRF over PRP include ease of preparation/application, minimal expense, and lack of biochemical modification (i.e., no bovinethrombin or anticoagulant is required). PRF predominantly consists of a fibrin matrix rich in platelet, leukocyte cytokines and growth factors (4). In the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery, PRF was first used with dental implantology.To reduce alveolar bone dimensional changes, several techniques aimed at enhancing the regeneration process in the extraction socket have been adopted, such as autogenous bone grafts or bone substitutes to fill sockets; guided bone regeneration (GBR) with re sorbable or non-re sorbable barriers; and the use of various bone promoting molecules such as enamel matrix derivative, recombinant growth and differentiation factors, and autologous platelet concentrates. These techniques have been used alone or in combination by clinicians in their search for the optimal socket preservation method (5).The use of platelet concentrates has been proposed as an aid for enhancing the regeneration of osseous and epithelial tissues in oral surgery (5). Several studies have suggested that platelet concentrates, especially PRF, may stimulate osseous and soft tissue regeneration while also reducing inflammation, pain and unwanted side effects (6,7).The aim of this study was to determine whether the use of PRF improved the healing of extraction sockets.
Patient and Methods
The inclusion criteria of patients in the study was presence of bilateral soft tissue impacted third molars that were positioned in a vertical or mildly mesio-angular direction. Patients with a medical history, patients who had smoking habits and patients with mandibular third molars requiring bone removal during surgery were excluded from this study. Patients who were referred to the Department of OMFS, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University (Ankara, Turkey) with pain or discomfort in the mandibular third molar region were examined for their possible recruitment in the study. In accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 47 of 96 patients underwent further radiographic and oral examinations. Twenty patients (7 males and 13 females, age range = 19-34 years, average age = 23.9 years) were included in this study.The protocol was reviewed by the Ethics Committee of Hacettepe University and is in compliance with the Helsinki Declaration. Each subject signed a detailed informed consent form.Patients underwent surgical treatment in accordance with the rules of antisepsis and asepsis. All treatments were performed by the same experienced surgeon. Prior to the extractions, 9 ml of venous blood was collected from each patient and was placed in anticoagulant-free glass tubes. Tubes were transferred to a centrifuge device and centrifuged for 10 minutes at 3000 rpm. Following centrifugation, PRF was dissected approximately 2 mm below its connection to the red corpuscle beneath to include remaining platelets, which have been proposed to localize below the junction between PRF and the red corpuscle. Then PRF was squeezed between gauzes to transform into a membrane.Mandibular and buccal blocks were administered using articaine containing 1:200,000 epinephrine. Before the surgical procedure, pocket depths of the neighboring teeth (e.g., tooth numbers 37 and 47) were measured from six points (e.g., mid, mesial and distal parts of the buccal and lingual aspects) using Michigan periodontal probe. After achieving anesthesia, sulcular and vertical incisions were made around the tooth to be extracted before full thickness flaps were reflected. The right and left third molars were carefully extracted during the same session. Subsequently, the PRF membrane was administered to one of the extraction sockets, which was chosen randomly. The surgical incisions were primarily closed with 3.0 silk sutures. Amoxicillin (2 x 1000 mg) and naproxen sodium (3 x 550 mg) were administered for 5 days post operatively for each patient. Sutures were removed on postoperative day 7 in all cases.Postoperative panoramic images and bone scintigrams were taken and periodontal evaluation was performed on postoperative days 30 and 90.- Scintigraphic StudyOn postoperative days 30 and 90, bone scans with technetium (TC) 99m methylene diphosphonate were performed for each patient. The intravenous injection of 555 MBq of Tc 99m methylene diphosphonate was performed; static images were acquired after 3 hours of injection. Circles were drawn on the operative sites to indicate the regions of interest, whereas circles of the same sizes were drawn in the contra lateral regions (Fig. 1). Peak values of the given radio pharmaceuticals were calculated using dynamic scans ( Table 1). All of the scintigraphic assessments were conducted by the same nuclear medicine physician, who was blinded to the study.
Figure 1
Regions of interest drawn on the scintigram to indicate extraction socket regions and the frontal bone of calvarium.
Table 1
The averages values of technetium-99 methylene diphosphonate uptake in PRF treated and non-PRF treated sockets in first and third months.
All patients who participated in this study attended the 30- and 90-day appointments.Two patients developed postoperative secondary infections. One patient developed an infection two months after the procedure, with pain and a 5-mm pocket on the distal surface of the second molar. The other patient displayed pain, swelling and an 8-mm pocket on the distal surface of the second molar tooth three weeks post operatively. Pus was also noted. Both infected areas were in the non-PRF treated regions. However, the periodontal probing depths of the second molars between PRF treated and non-PRF treated sockets did not show statistically significant differences (P < .01) on the 30- and 90-day postoperative visits.The averages of technetium-99 methylene diphosphonate uptake in PRF treated and non-PRF treated sockets were similar and not statistically significant (Fig. 2) on both postoperative visits.
Figure 2
The averages of Tc-99 methylene diphosphonate uptake in PRF treated and non-PRF treated sockets in the first and third months.
Authors: David M Dohan Ehrenfest; Pierre Doglioli; Giuseppe M de Peppo; Marco Del Corso; Jean-Baptiste Charrier Journal: Arch Oral Biol Date: 2010-02-21 Impact factor: 2.633
Authors: Joseph Choukroun; Antoine Diss; Alain Simonpieri; Marie-Odile Girard; Christian Schoeffler; Steve L Dohan; Anthony J J Dohan; Jaafar Mouhyi; David M Dohan Journal: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod Date: 2006-03
Authors: Qi Li; David A Reed; Liu Min; Gokul Gopinathan; Steve Li; Smit J Dangaria; Leo Li; Yajun Geng; Maria-Therese Galang; Praveen Gajendrareddy; Yanmin Zhou; Xianghong Luan; Thomas G H Diekwisch Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2014-05-14 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Ana B Castro; Nastaran Meschi; Andy Temmerman; Nelson Pinto; Paul Lambrechts; Wim Teughels; Marc Quirynen Journal: J Clin Periodontol Date: 2017-01-10 Impact factor: 8.728
Authors: Faizan Ahmed Khan; Prathapan Parayaruthottam; Gazanafer Roshan; Vineeth Menon; Mariyam Fidha; Anthony Kevin Fernandes Journal: J Int Soc Prev Community Dent Date: 2017-10-30