IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i14p7451-d593129.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison Study of the Histomorphometric Results after Socket Preservation with PRF and Allograft Used for Socket Preservation—Randomized Controlled Trials

Author

Listed:
  • Vasilena Ivanova

    (Oral Surgery Department, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Medical University of Plovdiv, 4000 Plovdiv, Bulgaria)

  • Ivan Chenchev

    (Center of Dental Implantology Research Institute, Medical University of Plovdiv, 4000 Plovdiv, Bulgaria)

  • Stefan Zlatev

    (CAD/CAM Center of Dental Medicine, Research Institute at the Medical University of Plovdiv, 4000 Plovdiv, Bulgaria)

  • Eitan Mijiritsky

    (Head and Neck Maxillofacial Surgery, Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Department of Otoryngology, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 699350, Israel)

Abstract

The aim of the present clinical study was to assess and compare the histomorphometric results and efficacy of freeze-dried bone allograft (FDBA) in combination with platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), and PRF as a sole grafting material for socket preservation. Ninety patients in need of tooth extraction and implant restoration were included in this study. The participants were randomly divided into three groups based on post-extraction clinical protocol: socket preservation procedure with allograft in combination with a PRF membrane (PRFm), PRF as a sole grafting material, and a control group. A total of 90 implants were placed four months post-extraction. During the surgical re-entry a bone biopsy was harvested with a trephine drill. Histological samples were prepared and analyzed for percentage vital bone and connective tissue. One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc analysis were used to assess the results. Both test groups revealed a significantly higher percentage of vital bone formation compared to the control group. No statistically significant differences regarding vital bone formation and connective tissue quantity between the tested groups were observed (FDBA + PRFm: 3.29 ± 13.03%; and PRF: 60.79 ± 9.72%). From a clinical and histological point of view, both materials in the test groups are suitable for the filling of post-extraction sockets without bone defects. Both of the tested groups revealed a significantly higher percentage of vital bone formation compared to the control group.

Suggested Citation

  • Vasilena Ivanova & Ivan Chenchev & Stefan Zlatev & Eitan Mijiritsky, 2021. "Comparison Study of the Histomorphometric Results after Socket Preservation with PRF and Allograft Used for Socket Preservation—Randomized Controlled Trials," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(14), pages 1-14, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:14:p:7451-:d:593129
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/14/7451/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/14/7451/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hsi Kuei Lin & Yu Hwa Pan & Eisner Salamanca & Yu Te Lin & Wei Jen Chang, 2019. "Prevention of Bone Resorption by HA/β-TCP + Collagen Composite after Tooth Extraction: A Case Series," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-11, November.
    2. Ihsan Caglar Cinar & Bahattin Alper Gultekin & Alper Saglanmak & Serdar Yalcin & Vakur Olgac & Eitan Mijiritsky, 2020. "Histologic, Histomorphometric, and Clinical Analysis of the Effects of Growth Factors in a Fibrin Network Used in Maxillary Sinus Augmentation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-16, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:14:p:7451-:d:593129. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.