Search

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., (© 2016 The Authors. Journal of Clinical Periodontology Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the bone regenerative properties of a heat treated cross-linked GBR membrane with zinc hydroxyapatite powders in the rat calvarial defect model over a 6-week period., Material and Methods: In vitro physio-chemical characterization involved X-ray diffraction analysis, surface topology by scanning electron microscopy, and zinc release studies in physiological buffers. Bilateral rat calvarial defects were used to compare the Zn-HAp membranes against the commercially available collagen membranes and the unfilled defect group through radiological and histological evaluation., Results: The synthesized Zn-MEM (100 μm thick) showed no zinc ions released in the phosphate buffer solution (PBS) buffer, but zinc was observed under acidic conditions. At 6 weeks, both the micro-CT and histological analyses revealed that the Zn-MEM group yielded significantly greater bone formation with 80 ± 2% of bone filled, as compared with 60 ± 5% in the collagen membrane and 40 ± 2% in the unfilled control group., Conclusion: This study demonstrated the use of heat treatment as an alternative method to cross-linking the Zn-MEM to be applied as a GBR membrane. Its synthesis and production are relatively simple to fabricate, and the membrane had rough surface features on one side, which might be beneficial for cellular activities. In a rat calvarial defect model, it was shown that new bone formation was accelerated in comparison with the collagen membrane and the unfilled defect groups. These results would suggest that Zn-MEM has the potential for further development in dental applications., (© 2014 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the vertical bone loss after using different techniques: sloped implants or standard implants with guided bone regeneration. Patients with tooth gap and horizontal bone deficiency were randomly allocated to the test group (implants with sloped platform—SLP) and control group (standard design implants with guided bone regeneration—GBR). The primary outcome was bone loss (6 months after finishing the prosthetic treatment). Secondary outcomes included the following: patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), post-operative edema, keratinized mucosa width, and pink aesthetic score (PES). The average bone loss at 6 months was 0.23 ± 0.15 mm and 1.03 ± 0.37 mm in the SLP and GBR groups, respectively. The SLP group was characterized by lower pain intensity the first 7 days (p < 0.001), lower post-operative edema (p < 0.001), lower consumption of NSAIDs on days 1, 3, 5, and 7 (p = 0.002, <0.001, <0.001, and 0.008), and lower total OHIP-14 (p = 0.047) on day 7. The keratinized mucosa width was 3.7 (3.4–4.0) mm and 2 (1.4–2.0) mm in the SLP and GBR groups, respectively. The preservation of the mesial, distal papillae, and the level of soft tissue correspondence were significantly higher in the SLP group (p = 0.003, 0.038, <0.001). In the SLP group, more natural color and better texture of soft tissues were found (p = 0.048, p = 0.041). The use of implants with a sloped platform resulted in superior outcomes compared to the standard-design implants with GBR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the vertical bone loss after using different techniques: sloped implants or standard implants with guided bone regeneration. Patients with tooth gap and horizontal bone deficiency were randomly allocated to the test group (implants with sloped platform—SLP) and control group (standard design implants with guided bone regeneration—GBR). The primary outcome was bone loss (6 months after finishing the prosthetic treatment). Secondary outcomes included the following: patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), post-operative edema, keratinized mucosa width, and pink aesthetic score (PES). The average bone loss at 6 months was 0.23 ± 0.15 mm and 1.03 ± 0.37 mm in the SLP and GBR groups, respectively. The SLP group was characterized by lower pain intensity the first 7 days (p < 0.001), lower post-operative edema (p < 0.001), lower consumption of NSAIDs on days 1, 3, 5, and 7 (p = 0.002, p = 0.047) on day 7. The keratinized mucosa width was 3.7 (3.4–4.0) mm and 2 (1.4–2.0) mm in the SLP and GBR groups, respectively. The preservation of the mesial, distal papillae, and the level of soft tissue correspondence were significantly higher in the SLP group (p = 0.003, 0.038, p = 0.048, p = 0.041). The use of implants with a sloped platform resulted in superior outcomes compared to the standard-design implants with GBR.

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]