Manasi Yewale1, Subraya Bhat1,2, Abhay Kamath3, Aditi Tamrakar4, Vathsala Patil4, Adel S Algal2. 1. Department of Periodontology, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India. 2. Periodontics, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Faisal University, Dammam KSA, Saudi Arabia. 3. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India. 4. Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical and radiographic effectiveness of A PRF Plus as an adjuctive material to osseous bone graft in socket preservation and ridge augmentation. METHODS: Twenty patients with need to preserve extraction socket in non-molar sites planning for further prosthetic rehabilitation were divided into two groups. Test Group (Group A) was treated with A PRF Plus membrane and Sybograf plus ™ (70% HA and 30 %β TCP) bone graft. The Control Group (Group B) was treated with Sybograf plus ™ (70% HA and 30% βTCP) bone graft. Both groups had same socket preservation surgical technique. RESULTS: Both Group A and Group B showed significant improvement in clinical and radiographic parameters. Mean socket length, Vertical Resorption reduction in Group A was 1.48 whereas in Group B was 1.67 which is statistically significant. (p ≤ 0.05). Changes in Horizontal width reduction at 1,3, and 5 mm depth of the socket for both groups were not statistically significant. The Gain in socket fill for Group A and B 6 months postoperatively was 1185.30HU ± 473.21 and 966.60 HU ± 273.27 respectively. But intergroup comparison was not statistically significant. (p = 0.17). There were no significant statistical differences in postoperative pain in Group A and Group B as subjects experienced moderate amount of pain. The assessment of post-operative swelling showed that only 30% subjects in Group A reported with swelling. Whereas 80% subjects in Group B complained of post-operative swelling. CONCLUSION: The results of the present study proved utilisation of A PRF Plus as a promising adjunct to conventional regenerative therapy for socket preservation.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical and radiographic effectiveness of A PRF Plus as an adjuctive material to osseous bone graft in socket preservation and ridge augmentation. METHODS: Twenty patients with need to preserve extraction socket in non-molar sites planning for further prosthetic rehabilitation were divided into two groups. Test Group (Group A) was treated with A PRF Plus membrane and Sybograf plus ™ (70% HA and 30 %β TCP) bone graft. The Control Group (Group B) was treated with Sybograf plus ™ (70% HA and 30% βTCP) bone graft. Both groups had same socket preservation surgical technique. RESULTS: Both Group A and Group B showed significant improvement in clinical and radiographic parameters. Mean socket length, Vertical Resorption reduction in Group A was 1.48 whereas in Group B was 1.67 which is statistically significant. (p ≤ 0.05). Changes in Horizontal width reduction at 1,3, and 5 mm depth of the socket for both groups were not statistically significant. The Gain in socket fill for Group A and B 6 months postoperatively was 1185.30HU ± 473.21 and 966.60 HU ± 273.27 respectively. But intergroup comparison was not statistically significant. (p = 0.17). There were no significant statistical differences in postoperative pain in Group A and Group B as subjects experienced moderate amount of pain. The assessment of post-operative swelling showed that only 30% subjects in Group A reported with swelling. Whereas 80% subjects in Group B complained of post-operative swelling. CONCLUSION: The results of the present study proved utilisation of A PRF Plus as a promising adjunct to conventional regenerative therapy for socket preservation.
Authors: Robert A Horowitz; Ziv Mazor; Robert J Miller; Jack Krauser; Hari S Prasad; Michael D Rohrer Journal: Compend Contin Educ Dent Date: 2009 Nov-Dec