Amerigo Giudice1, Selene Barone2, Carmen Giudice3, Francesco Bennardo2, Leonzio Fortunato2. 1. School of Dentistry, Department of Health Sciences, Magna Graecia University of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, Italy. Electronic address: A.giudice@unicz.it. 2. School of Dentistry, Department of Health Sciences, Magna Graecia University of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, Italy. 3. Private Practice, Sala Consilina, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) after bone surgery compared to surgery alone in the treatment of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ). STUDY DESIGN: A total of 47 patients with diagnosis of stage II or III of MRONJ were recruited at the Academic Hospital of Magna Graecia University of Catanzaro and allocated to 2 groups: In the first, patients were treated with PRF in addition to surgery (PRF group), in the other, only bone surgery was performed (non-PRF group). Fisher's exact and Student t tests were used to evaluate differences between the 2 surgical protocols in terms of mucosal integrity, absence of infection, and pain evaluation at scheduled follow-ups of 1 month (T1), 6 months (T2), and 1 year (T3). RESULTS: Analysis of mucosal integrity, absence of infection, and pain evaluation showed a significant difference between the 2 groups in favor of PRF only at T1 (P < .05), whereas no differences were determined at T2 and T3 (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggested that local application of PRF after bone surgery may improve the quality of life limited to the short-term follow-up and reduce pain and postoperative infections.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) after bone surgery compared to surgery alone in the treatment of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ). STUDY DESIGN: A total of 47 patients with diagnosis of stage II or III of MRONJ were recruited at the Academic Hospital of Magna Graecia University of Catanzaro and allocated to 2 groups: In the first, patients were treated with PRF in addition to surgery (PRF group), in the other, only bone surgery was performed (non-PRF group). Fisher's exact and Student t tests were used to evaluate differences between the 2 surgical protocols in terms of mucosal integrity, absence of infection, and pain evaluation at scheduled follow-ups of 1 month (T1), 6 months (T2), and 1 year (T3). RESULTS: Analysis of mucosal integrity, absence of infection, and pain evaluation showed a significant difference between the 2 groups in favor of PRF only at T1 (P < .05), whereas no differences were determined at T2 and T3 (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggested that local application of PRF after bone surgery may improve the quality of life limited to the short-term follow-up and reduce pain and postoperative infections.
Authors: Antonio Fusco; Grazia Dicuonzo; Vittorio Dell'Atti; Marco Tatullo Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-09-30 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Anna Di Vito; E Chiarella; F Baudi; P Scardamaglia; A Antonelli; D Giudice; T Barni; L Fortunato; A Giudice Journal: Cell Transplant Date: 2020 Jan-Dec Impact factor: 4.064