Veena Jayadevan1, Paras-Mull Gehlot2, Vinutha Manjunath2, Subbarao V Madhunapantula3, Jyothi-Swandenahalli Lakshmikanth4. 1. BDS. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics. JSS Dental College and Hospital. JSS Academy of Higher Education and Research. Sri Shivarathreeshwara Nagar. Mysuru- 570015, Karnataka, India. 2. MDS. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics. JSS Dental College and Hospital. JSS Academy of Higher Education and Research. Sri Shivarathreeshwara Nagar. Mysuru- 570015, Karnataka, India. 3. BSc, B.Ed, M.Sc, Ph.D. Department of Biochemistry. JSS Medical College and Hospital. JSS Academy of Higher Education and Research. Sri Shivarathreeshwara Nagar. Mysuru- 570015, Karnataka, India. 4. M Pharm. Department of Pharmaceutics. JSS College of Pharmacy. JSS Academy of Higher Education and Research. Sri Shivarathreeshwara Nagar. Mysuru- 570015, Karnataka, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Regenerative endodontic treatment (RET) is a promising treatment alternative for traumatized immature non-vital teeth. Advanced platelet-rich fibrin (A-PRF) contains significantly more growth factors than Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) and has not been evaluated as a scaffold in RET. The aim of the present study was to evaluate and compare A-PRF and PRF as scaffolds in the RET concerning periapical healing, and root development of traumatized immature non-vital teeth. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In the present study, RET was performed on 30 traumatized immature non-vital maxillary incisors in 28 patients aged between 8-27 years. Minimal mechanical debridement and irrigation with 1.5% sodium hypochlorite and 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid was performed. Canals were disinfected using modified triple antibiotic paste consisting of ciprofloxacin, metronidazole and cefaclor. Based on the type of scaffold, teeth were randomly assigned into A-PRF (n=15) and PRF groups (n=15). Periapical healing, apical response and quantitative root dimensions (length and thickness) were analyzed radiographically after 12 months follow-up. RESULTS: Nineteen patients with 21 teeth (A-PRF n=11, PRF n=10) completed the follow-up and 9 patients were excluded. Clinically, patients in both the groups were asymptomatic. The survival rates for A-PRF and PRF were 78.5% and 77.5%, respectively. No statistically significant differences were detected between A-PRF and PRF regarding periapical healing and type of apical response (p& 0.05). The difference in the pre-operative and follow-up root thickness and root length in both A-PRF and PRF groups were statistically significant (p< 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Based on short-term results of 13 months, both A-PRF and PRF can be used as scaffold in regenerative endodontic treatment of traumatized immature non-vital teeth. A-PRF could be recommended in such cases since it yielded more root dentin thickness which is crucial for reinforcing immature teeth. Key words:Regenerative endodontic treatment, dental trauma, Non-vital teeth, immature teeth, platelet-rich fibrin, advanced platelet-rich fibrin. Copyright:
BACKGROUND: Regenerative endodontic treatment (RET) is a promising treatment alternative for traumatized immature non-vital teeth. Advanced platelet-rich fibrin (A-PRF) contains significantly more growth factors than Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) and has not been evaluated as a scaffold in RET. The aim of the present study was to evaluate and compare A-PRF and PRF as scaffolds in the RET concerning periapical healing, and root development of traumatized immature non-vital teeth. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In the present study, RET was performed on 30 traumatized immature non-vital maxillary incisors in 28 patients aged between 8-27 years. Minimal mechanical debridement and irrigation with 1.5% sodium hypochlorite and 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid was performed. Canals were disinfected using modified triple antibiotic paste consisting of ciprofloxacin, metronidazole and cefaclor. Based on the type of scaffold, teeth were randomly assigned into A-PRF (n=15) and PRF groups (n=15). Periapical healing, apical response and quantitative root dimensions (length and thickness) were analyzed radiographically after 12 months follow-up. RESULTS: Nineteen patients with 21 teeth (A-PRF n=11, PRF n=10) completed the follow-up and 9 patients were excluded. Clinically, patients in both the groups were asymptomatic. The survival rates for A-PRF and PRF were 78.5% and 77.5%, respectively. No statistically significant differences were detected between A-PRF and PRF regarding periapical healing and type of apical response (p& 0.05). The difference in the pre-operative and follow-up root thickness and root length in both A-PRF and PRF groups were statistically significant (p< 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Based on short-term results of 13 months, both A-PRF and PRF can be used as scaffold in regenerative endodontic treatment of traumatized immature non-vital teeth. A-PRF could be recommended in such cases since it yielded more root dentin thickness which is crucial for reinforcing immature teeth. Key words:Regenerative endodontic treatment, dental trauma, Non-vital teeth, immature teeth, platelet-rich fibrin, advanced platelet-rich fibrin. Copyright:
Authors: Shahram Ghanaati; Patrick Booms; Anna Orlowska; Alica Kubesch; Jonas Lorenz; Jim Rutkowski; Constantin Landes; Robert Sader; Cj Kirkpatrick; Joseph Choukroun Journal: J Oral Implantol Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 1.779
Authors: Tarek Mohamed A Saoud; Ashraf Zaazou; Ahmed Nabil; Sybel Moussa; Louis M Lin; Jennifer L Gibbs Journal: J Endod Date: 2014-10-16 Impact factor: 4.171