Platelet Rich Fibrin in double lateral sliding bridge flap procedure for gingival recession coverage: An original study

Clinical Efficacy of Platelet Derivatives in Periodontal Tissue Regeneration: An Umbrella Review

OBJECTIVES

This umbrella review aimed to consolidate the best available evidence regarding the clinical efficacy of platelet derivatives in the treatment of periodontal defects associated with periodontitis and in the management of mucogingival deformities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The "umbrella review" strategy was used to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The search was performed without language restrictions and updated at the end of February 2023. The PubMed and Scopus databases, together with gray literature, were included in the search.

RESULTS

The search yielded 412 studies. Subsequently, 12 articles were selected for further examination based on relevance. Finally, eight systematic reviews and meta-analyses were assessed. Regarding intrabony defects, in terms of clinical attachment level (CAL) gain, platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) was observed to lead to a statistically significant attachment gain compared to surgical therapy alone. PRF was also found to show greater CAL gain compared to platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and other biomaterials. The parameter probing depth decreased significantly when PRF was used compared to surgical therapy alone (P < 0.05). Similar results were seen when leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) was applied. In terms of radiographic bone fill, both PRF and PRP showed significantly greater bone fill compared to surgical therapy. Regarding the results of periodontal plastic surgery, PRF favored a slight root coverage compared to the coronally displaced flap. This result depended on the number of PRF and L-PRF membranes used, but Emdogain or connective tissue graft produced better results regardless. However, an improvement in the healing of periodontal tissues was reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapies with platelet derivatives applied to intrabony defects provided superior regenerative results compared to monotherapies, except in the case of root coverage.

Efficacy of biologics in root coverage and gingival augmentation therapy: An American Academy of Periodontology best evidence systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy of three biologics, namely autologous blood-derived products (ABPs), enamel matrix derivatives (EMD) and recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor BB (rhPDGF-BB), in root coverage and gingival augmentation therapy.

METHODS

The protocol of this PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021285917). After study selection, data of interest were extracted. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to assess the effect of different surgical interventions on the main clinical outcomes of interest (i.e., mean root coverage [MRC%], complete root coverage [CRC%], keratinized tissue width [KTW], gingival thickness [GT] change, and recession depth [RD] reduction).

RESULTS

A total of 48 trials reported in 55 articles were selected. All studies reported on the treatment of gingival recession defects for root coverage purposes. Forty-six treatment arms from 24 trials were included in the NMA. These arms consisted of treatment with coronally advanced flap (CAF) alone, EMD + CAF, platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) + CAF, and subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) + CAF. Regarding MRC%, SCTG+CAF was associated with a significant higher estimate (13.41%, 95% CI [8.06-18.75], P <  0.01), while EMD+CAF (6.68%, 95% CI [-0.03 to 13.4], P = 0.061) and PRF+CAF (1.03%, 95% CI [-5.65 to 7.72], P = 0.71) failed to show statistically significant differences compared with CAF alone (control group) or with each other. Similarly, only SCTG+CAF led to a significantly higher CRC% (14.41%, 95% CI [4.21 to 24.61], P < 0.01), while treatment arms EMD + CAF (13.48%, 95% CI [-3.34 to 30.32], P = 0.11) and PRF+CAF (-0.91%, 95% CI [-15.38, 13.57], p = 0.81) did not show significant differences compared with CAF alone or with each other. Differences in the CI of PRF+CAF (symmetrical around a zero adjunctive effect) and EMD+CAF (non-symmetrical) suggest that EMD could have some additional value compared with PRF. Treatment with SCTG+CAF led to a statistically significant higher RD reduction (-0.39 mm, 95% CI [-0.55 to 0.22], P < 0.01), however EMD+CAF (-0.13 mm, 95% CI [-0.29 to 0.01], P = 0.08) and PRF+CAF (-0.06 mm, 95% CI [-0.23 to 0.09], P = 0.39) failed to show significant differences compared with CAF or with each other. While SCTG+CAF was associated with a statistically significant higher gain of KTW (0.71 mm, 95% CI [0.48 to 0.93], P < 0.01), EMD+CAF (0.24 mm, 95% CI [-0.02 to 0.51], P = 0.08) and PRF+CAF (0.08 mm, 95% CI [-0.23 to 0.41], P = 0.58) did not result into significant changes compared with CAF alone or with each other. Regarding the use of rhPDGF-BB+CAF, although available studies have reported equivalent results compared with SCTG+CAF, evidence is very limited.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of ABPs, EMD, or rhPDGF-BB in conjunction with a CAF for root coverage purposes is safe and generally promotes significant improvements respective to baseline clinical parameters. However, the adjunctive use of ABPs and EMD does not provide substantial additional improvements in terms of clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures to those achieved using CAF alone, when baseline KTW is >2 mm. Both PRF+CAF and EMD+CAF rendered inferior MRC%, CRC%, RD reduction, and KTW gain compared with SCTG+CAF, which should still be considered the gold-standard in root coverage therapy. Although some studies have reported equivalent results for rhPDGF-BB+CAF compared with the gold-standard intervention, limited evidence precludes formal comparisons with CAF or SCTG+CAF that could be extrapolated to guide clinical practice.

Root Coverage Predictability in the Treatment of Gingival Recessions on Mandibular Anterior Teeth

INTRODUCTION

Mandibular anterior teeth are most frequently affected by gingival recession. However, data regarding mucogingival treatment aimed at root coverage in this specific location are limited.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to systematically review the scientific literature and to use the meta-analytic approach to address the following focused question: "What is the effectiveness of different surgical approaches on clinical and patient-related outcomes in the treatment of buccal gingival recessions on mandibular anterior teeth?"

METHODS

Studies were located by searching 3 electronic databases (Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane databases) and cross-referencing. Randomized and nonrandomized studies including at least 1 arm involving the use of pedicle flaps and/or free soft tissue grafts in the treatment of gingival recessions (recession type [RT] 1 and RT2) located on the buccal aspects of mandibular centrals, laterals and canines, were included in the analysis. Primary outcome was mean root coverage (mRC), expressed in percentage, based on a 3- to 12-mo follow-up observation. A Bayesian single-arm network meta-analysis was performed to identify a treatment hierarchy of the different surgical techniques.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies, with a total of 23 arms, were included in the quantitative analysis. The greatest mRC is associated with laterally positioned flap (LPF) + connective tissue graft (CTG) (91.2%) and tunnel (TUN) + CTG (89.4%), whereas LPF alone, coronally advanced flap (CAF) + CTG, and free gingival graft (FGG) showed lower mRC (79.1%, 78.9%, and 68.5% respectively). TUN + CTG provides significantly greater mRC compared to CAF+CTG. No difference among the procedures could be observed in terms of keratinized tissue width gain.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment hierarchy generated by an arm-based network meta-analysis model suggested that tunnel and laterally positioned flap, both in combination with connective tissue graft, may provide the greatest mean root coverage in the treatment of mandibular anterior recessions.

KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT

The results of the present systematic review can be used by clinicians when deciding which approach to adopt when treating buccal gingival recessions on mandibular anterior teeth. In particular, procedures based on a laterally positioned flap or a tunneling technique, both in combination with connective tissue graft, seem to be the most predictable therapeutic decision.

Platelet-Rich Fibrin and its Emerging Therapeutic Benefits for Musculoskeletal Injury Treatment

New therapies that accelerate musculoskeletal tissue recovery are highly desirable. Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) is a leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin biomaterial that acts as a binding site for both platelets and growth factors. Through increasing the local concentration of growth factors at specific tissues, PRF promotes tissue regeneration. PRF has been frequently used in combination with bone graft materials to reduce healing times and promote bone regeneration during maxillofacial surgery. However, its benefits during muscle repair and recovery are less well-documented. Here, we perform a narrative review on PRF therapies and muscle injuries to ascertain its beneficial effects. We reviewed the factors that contribute to the biological activity of PRF and the published pre-clinical and clinical evidence to support its emerging use in musculoskeletal therapy. We include in vitro studies, in vivo animal studies and clinical articles highlighting both the success and failures of PRF treatment. PRF can promote the healing process when used in a range of orthopaedic and sports-related injuries. These include cartilage repair, rotator cuff surgery and anterior cruciate ligament surgery. However, conflicting data for these benefits have been reported, most likely due to inconsistencies in both PRF preparation protocols and dosing regimens. Despite this, the literature generally supports the use of PRF as a beneficial adjuvant for a range of chronic muscle, tendon, bone or other soft tissue injuries. Further clinical trials to confirm these benefits require consistency in PRF preparation and the classification of a successful clinical outcome to fully harness its potential.

Use of platelet-rich fibrin in regenerative dentistry: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Research across many fields of medicine now points towards the clinical advantages of combining regenerative procedures with platelet-rich fibrin (PRF). This systematic review aimed to gather the extensive number of articles published to date on PRF in the dental field to better understand the clinical procedures where PRF may be utilized to enhance tissue/bone formation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Manuscripts were searched systematically until May 2016 and separated into the following categories: intrabony and furcation defect regeneration, extraction socket management, sinus lifting procedures, gingival recession treatment, and guided bone regeneration (GBR) including horizontal/vertical bone augmentation procedures. Only human randomized clinical trials were included for assessment.

RESULTS

In total, 35 articles were selected and divided accordingly (kappa = 0.94). Overall, the use of PRF has been most investigated in periodontology for the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects and gingival recessions where the majority of studies have demonstrated favorable results in soft tissue management and repair. Little to no randomized clinical trials were found for extraction socket management although PRF has been shown to significantly decrease by tenfold dry sockets of third molars. Very little to no data was available directly investigating the effects of PRF on new bone formation in GBR, horizontal/vertical bone augmentation procedures, treatment of peri-implantitis, and sinus lifting procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Much investigation now supports the use of PRF for periodontal and soft tissue repair. Despite this, there remains a lack of well-conducted studies demonstrating convincingly the role of PRF during hard tissue bone regeneration. Future human randomized clinical studies evaluating the use of PRF on bone formation thus remain necessary.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

PRF was shown to improve soft tissue generation and limit dimensional changes post-extraction, with little available data to date supporting its use in GBR.