Search

Copyright of Journal of Prevention & Treatment For Stomatological Diseases is the property of Journal of Prevention & Treatment For Stomatological Diseases Editorial Office and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective: To assess the effect of platelet‐rich plasma (PRP) on implant dentistry. The primary focused question was as follows: What are the clinical, histological, and radiographic outcomes of PRP administration for bone regeneration and implant therapy? Methods: A literature search was conducted involving three databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane database followed by a hand search of relevant scientific journals. Human studies using PRP for bone regeneration and implant therapy were considered and articles published up to December 31, 2017 were included. Eligible studies were selected based on the inclusion criteria, and quality assessments were conducted. Results: In total, out from the 9,497 titles meeting the original search criteria, 22 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were chosen for data extraction. Among them were 15 randomized controlled trials (RCT) and seven controlled clinical trials (CCT). Overall, the risk of bias was moderate to high. A total of seven studies showed superior outcomes when PRP was added during sinus floor elevation and five showed no superior outcome. Three studies found a significant advantage of PRP for alveolar bone regeneration and another three studies for soft tissue healing. Three studies reported on beneficial effects of PRP directly during implant placement while another study failed to find significant differences. Due to the heterogeneity of study designs, no meta‐analysis could be performed. Summary and Conclusions: Despite the lack of consistent evidence supporting the clinical benefit of PRP in healthy patients, PRP might have a positive effect on wound healing and bone regeneration in compromised patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the impact of platelet‐rich fibrin (PRF) on implant dentistry. The primary focused question was as follows: What are the clinical, histological, and radiographic outcomes of PRF administration for bone regeneration and implant therapy? Method: A systematic literature search comprised three databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane followed by a hand search of relevant scientific journals. Human studies using PRF for bone regeneration and implant therapy were considered and articles published up to December 31, 2017 were included. Eligible studies were selected based on the inclusion criteria. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and controlled clinical trials (CCT) were included. Results: In total, 5,963 titles were identified with the search terms and by hand search. A total of 12 randomized controlled trials (RCT) met the inclusion criteria and were chosen for data extraction. Included studies focused on alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction, osseointegration process, soft tissue management, bone augmentation, bone regeneration after sinus floor elevation and surgical peri‐implantitis treatment. Overall, the risk of bias was moderate or unclear. Nine studies showed superior outcomes for PRF for any of the evaluated variables, such as ridge dimension, bone regeneration, osseointegration process, soft tissue healing. Three studies failed to show any beneficial effects of PRF. No meta‐analysis could be performed due to the heterogeneity of study designs. Conclusions: There is moderate evidence supporting the clinical benefit of PRF on ridge preservation and in the early phase of osseointegration. It remains unclear whether PRF can reduce pain and improve soft tissue healing. More research support is necessary to comment on the role of PRF to improve other implant therapy outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The task of this working group was to update the knowledge about the use of drugs and biologicals affecting healing of soft tissue and bone during implant treatment or procedures associated with it. Moreover, the impact of titanium particles and biocorrosion on complications and implant survival has been analysed. Materials and Methods: The literature in the areas of interest (platelet concentrates, antiresorptive drugs as well as implant–host interaction) was screened using systematic reviews for the former two areas, whereas a narrative critical review was performed for the latter topic. Two manuscripts on platelet concentrates, one manuscript on antiresorptive drugs and one manuscript on the effects of biocorrosion, were presented for group analysis with subsequent discussion in the plenum and final consensus approval. Results: Results and conclusions of the individual reviews of the three topics are presented in the respective papers. Conclusions of the group on strengths and weaknesses of available evidence as well as consensus statements and directions for further research are provided in this study. The following papers were subject to group discussions and formed the basis for the consensus statements: Stähli A, Strauss FJ, Gruber R. () The use of platelet‐rich‐plasma to enhance the outcomes of implant‐related therapies: a systematic reviewStrauss FJ, Stähli A, Gruber R. (2018) The use of platelet‐rich‐fibrin to enhance the outcomes of implant‐related therapies: a systematic reviewMombelli A, Hashim D, Cionca N. () What is the impact of titanium particles and bio‐corrosion on implant survival and complications? A critical reviewStavropoulos A, Bertl K, Pietschmann P, Pandis N, Morten Schiødt, Klinge B. () The effect of antiresorptive drugs on implant therapy: a systematic review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim To analyse the effect of leucocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) on bone regeneration procedures and osseointegration. Materials and Methods An electronic and hand search was conducted in three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane). Only randomized clinical trials, written in English where L-PRF was applied in bone regeneration and implant procedures, were selected. No follow-up restrictions were applied. Results A total of 14 articles were included and processed. Three subgroups were created depending on the application: sinus floor elevation (SFE), alveolar ridge preservation and implant therapy. In SFE, for a lateral window as well as for the trans-alveolar technique, histologically faster bone healing was reported when L-PRF was added to most common xenografts. L-PRF alone improved the preservation of the alveolar width, resulting in less buccal bone resorption compared to natural healing. In implant therapy, better implant stability over time and less marginal bone loss were observed when L-PRF was applied. Meta-analyses could not be performed due to the heterogeneity of the data. Conclusions Despite the lack of strong evidence found in this systematic review, L-PRF might have a positive effect on bone regeneration and osseointegration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]