| Literature DB >> 35956553 |
Jothi Varghese1, Anjale Rajagopal1, Shashikiran Shanmugasundaram1.
Abstract
Periodontal infections are noncommunicable chronic inflammatory diseases of multifactorial origin that can induce destruction of both soft and hard tissues of the periodontium. The standard remedial modalities for periodontal regeneration include nonsurgical followed by surgical therapy with the adjunctive use of various biomaterials to achieve restoration of the lost tissues. Lately, there has been substantial development in the field of biomaterial, which includes the sole or combined use of osseous grafts, barrier membranes, growth factors and autogenic substitutes to achieve tissue and bone regeneration. Of these, bone replacement grafts have been widely explored for their osteogenic potential with varied outcomes. Osseous grafts are derived from either human, bovine or synthetic sources. Though the biologic response from autogenic biomaterials may be better, the use of bone replacement synthetic substitutes could be practical for clinical practice. This comprehensive review focuses initially on bone graft replacement substitutes, namely ceramic-based (calcium phosphate derivatives, bioactive glass) and autologous platelet concentrates, which assist in alveolar bone regeneration. Further literature compilations emphasize the innovations of biomaterials used as bone substitutes, barrier membranes and complex scaffold fabrication techniques that can mimic the histologically vital tissues required for the regeneration of periodontal apparatus.Entities:
Keywords: autologous platelet concentrates; bone grafts; calcium phosphate grafts; guided tissue regeneration substitutes; nanohydroxyapatite bone graft substitutes; periodontal regeneration; scaffold designs
Year: 2022 PMID: 35956553 PMCID: PMC9370319 DOI: 10.3390/polym14153038
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.967
Figure 1Sequential events that depict the bone regeneration after PRF application.
Detailed summary of the application of bone grafts with/without PRF.
| Author | Biomaterial | Model Used | Observation | Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ozawa et al. (2018) [ | Collagen sponge (ACS) hydroxyapatite/collagen composite (HAP/Col) | Rats (male) | 12 weeks | Results suggested that application of HAP/Col increased outgrowth of new bone much more prominently than collagen group |
| Leventis et al. (2018) [ | β-TCP + poly(lactic-co-glycolic) acid (PGLA) + Biolinker® (N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone solution) | Landrace (female) pigs | 12 weeks | Experimental sites showed less mean horizontal dimensional reduction of alveolar bridge but not statistically significant, with more new bone in experimental group |
| Kizildağ et al. (2018) [ | Leukocyte-platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) + (OFD)/OFD alone | 16 humans with 32 sites | baseline and 6 months | (L-PRF) + (OFD) group showed significant PD reduction and CAL gain than OFD alone group |
| Okada et al. (2019) [ | Group 1: β-TCP | Beagle (male) dogs | 12 weeks | β-TCP + PGLA seems to be more effective than conventional β-TCP for ridge preservation |
| Sapata et al. (2019) [ | Deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) | 65 patients | 4 months | DBBM demonstrated a noninferiority status compared to DBBM-CM group |
| Bodhare et al. (2019) [ | Control: OFD + BioGide | 40 human sites | 6 months | BioGide when used in combination with PRF is found to be more effective in gain in CAL, reduction in PD and achieving greater bone fill as compared to treatment with BG alone |
| Atchuta A et al. (2020) [ | Group I: open-flap debridement; Group II: DFDBA alone; Group III: DFDBA + PRF | 39 human sites | Baseline, 3 months and 6 months | DFDBA + PRF group yielded better reduction of PPD and Relative attachment level (RAL) at 6 months interval |
| Kai-Ning Liu et al. (2020) [ | Control group, GTR and Bio-Oss® | 14 patients | 6, 12 and 24 months | GTR and Bio-Oss® with PRF is more effective in treatment of periodontal intrabony defects than GTR and Bio-Oss® without PRF (CAL, PD) at all time intervals |
| Thakkar B et al. (2020) [ | Group I: PRF and GTR | 32 human sites | Baseline, 3 months and 6 months | Group II showed statistically significant changes in reduction in pocket depth and defect depth resolution |
| Bahammam MA et al. (2020) [ | Group I: PRF + OFD | 60 human patients | Baseline and 6 months | Most significant increase in bone density and fill was observed for IBD depth in group III |
| Apine AA et al. (2020) [ | Group I: NovaBone® putty. | 30 intrabony defects were treated in 11 patients | Baseline, 3, 6 and 9 months | Improvement of clinical and radiographic parameters at sites treated with NovaBone® putty was better compared to that of sites treated with PRF, but differences were statistically not significant |
| Paolantonio M et al. (2020) [ | Test group: L-PRF associated with autogenous bone graft (ABG) | 44 patients | Baseline and 12 months | L-PRF + ABG produces noninferior results for CAL gain, PPD reduction, GR increase and DBL gain in comparison with EMD + ABG when treating noncontained IBDs. |
| Jae-Hong Lee et al. (2021) [ | Test group: demineralized porcine bone matrix (DPBM) with EMD | 34 patients | Baseline, 2 years and 4 years | clinical, radiographic and patient-reported outcomes were significantly improved when DPBM no additional clinical and radiographic benefits were observed with adjunctive use of EMD |
| Bhatnagar S et al. (2021) [ | Control sites: OFD alone | 15 patients; 30 intrabony periodontal defects | Baseline, 3 and 6 months | Significant increase in Defect Fill and Percentage of Defect fill in both groups with better bone fill in test sites |
| Pavani MP et al. (2021) [ | Group A: open-flap debridement (OFD) | 30 human sites | 6 months | Bone fill achieved in β TCP with PRF was more compared to β TCP alone and OFD at 6 months follow-up |
| Razi MA et al. (2021) [ | Group I: PRF with demineralized bone matrix | 30 patients | 9 months | PRF group had significant reduction in PD, RAL and Gingival recession (GR) |
Figure 2Evolution of biomaterial design and construction used for periodontal regeneration.
Figure 3Trilayered nanocomposite hydrogel scaffold for periodontal regeneration. “Reprinted (adapted) with permission from Ref. [126]. Copyright 2017 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim.
Figure 4Smart biomaterial with shape memory for periodontal regeneration. “Reprinted (adapted) with permission from Ref. [132]. Copyright 2014 American Chemical Society.