Songül Cömert Kılıç1, Metin Güngörmüş2, Seçil Nazife Parlak3. 1. Ministry of Health, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Center for Oral and Dental Health, Erzurum, Turkey. 2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey. 3. Department of Histology and Embryology, Faculty of Medicine, Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The potential effects of adding pure platelet-rich plasma (P-PRP) or platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) to beta-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) graft substitute on bone formation and regeneration after maxillary sinus-floor elevation remains unclear. PURPOSE: To compare the histologic and histomorphometric outcomes of maxillary sinus-floor augmentation among β-TCP alone, P-PRP-mixed β-TCP, and PRF-mixed β-TCP. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this randomized clinical trial, elevated sinus cavities were grafted with β-TCP (the control group), P-PRP-mixed β-TCP (the P-PRP group), and PRF-mixed β-TCP (PRF group). The sample was composed of 26 patients: 9 subjects in control and P-PRP groups, and 8 subjects in PRF group. After a 6-month, healing period, bone graft biopsies were harvested prior to implant placement, and the specimens were analyzed. The main outcome variables included findings of histologic and histomorphometric analyses of the bone graft biopsies. The data were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests. RESULTS: The mean percentages of new bone formations were 33.40 ± 10.43%, 34.83 ± 10.12%, and 32.03 ± 6.34% in control, P-PRP, and PRF groups, respectively, with no significant differences (P > .05). Mean percentages of residual graft particle area were 30.39 ± 10.29%, 28.98 ± 7.94%, and 32.66 ± 7.46% in control, P-PRP, and PRF groups, respectively, with no significant differences (P > .05). The mean percentages of soft-tissue area were 36.21 ± 10.59%, 36.19 ± 13.94%, and 35.31 ± 10.81% in control, P-PRP, and PRF groups, respectively, with no significant differences (P > .05). Mean densities of osteoblasts, osteoclasts, osteocytes, and capillary vessels showed insignificant difference between groups (P > .05), but osteoprogenitor cells were lower and inflammatory cells were higher in the PRF group than those in other groups (P < .01). Biopsies of P-PRP, PRF, and control groups showed similar composition and distribution of histologic structures. CONCLUSION: These findings suggested that adding P-PRP or PRF to β-TCPgraft substitute was not beneficial on new bone formation and regeneration, and P-PRP plus β-TCP or PRF plus β-TCP is not superior to β-TCP alone.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The potential effects of adding pure platelet-rich plasma (P-PRP) or platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) to beta-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) graft substitute on bone formation and regeneration after maxillary sinus-floor elevation remains unclear. PURPOSE: To compare the histologic and histomorphometric outcomes of maxillary sinus-floor augmentation among β-TCP alone, P-PRP-mixed β-TCP, and PRF-mixed β-TCP. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this randomized clinical trial, elevated sinus cavities were grafted with β-TCP (the control group), P-PRP-mixed β-TCP (the P-PRP group), and PRF-mixed β-TCP (PRF group). The sample was composed of 26 patients: 9 subjects in control and P-PRP groups, and 8 subjects in PRF group. After a 6-month, healing period, bone graft biopsies were harvested prior to implant placement, and the specimens were analyzed. The main outcome variables included findings of histologic and histomorphometric analyses of the bone graft biopsies. The data were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests. RESULTS: The mean percentages of new bone formations were 33.40 ± 10.43%, 34.83 ± 10.12%, and 32.03 ± 6.34% in control, P-PRP, and PRF groups, respectively, with no significant differences (P > .05). Mean percentages of residual graft particle area were 30.39 ± 10.29%, 28.98 ± 7.94%, and 32.66 ± 7.46% in control, P-PRP, and PRF groups, respectively, with no significant differences (P > .05). The mean percentages of soft-tissue area were 36.21 ± 10.59%, 36.19 ± 13.94%, and 35.31 ± 10.81% in control, P-PRP, and PRF groups, respectively, with no significant differences (P > .05). Mean densities of osteoblasts, osteoclasts, osteocytes, and capillary vessels showed insignificant difference between groups (P > .05), but osteoprogenitor cells were lower and inflammatory cells were higher in the PRF group than those in other groups (P < .01). Biopsies of P-PRP, PRF, and control groups showed similar composition and distribution of histologic structures. CONCLUSION: These findings suggested that adding P-PRP or PRF to β-TCP graft substitute was not beneficial on new bone formation and regeneration, and P-PRP plus β-TCP or PRF plus β-TCP is not superior to β-TCP alone.
Authors: Bálint Trimmel; Noémi Gede; Péter Hegyi; Zsolt Szakács; Gyöngyi Anna Mezey; Eszter Varga; Márton Kivovics; Lilla Hanák; Zoltán Rumbus; György Szabó Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2021-01-06 Impact factor: 5.977