Passarelli P C, Romeo A, Lopez M A, De Angelis P, Desantis V, Piccirillo G B, Papa R, Papi P, Pompa G, Moffa A, Casale M, D'Addona A
Department of Head and Neck, Division of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Institute of Clinical Dentistry, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Gemelli, Rome, Italy.
Unit of Otolaryngology, UOS ORL TI, Campus-Biomedico University, Rome, Italy.
J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2020 Sep-Oct;34(5 Suppl. 3):111-118. Technology in Medicine.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the periodontal healing of the distal sites of the mandibular second molars, comparing the extraction therapy of the third molar with and without PRF adjunct into the postextraction alveolus. The study sample was composed by 40 consecutive patients who underwent extraction of mandibular third molars. Patients were divided in two groups: the last 20 participants who have only been subjected to extraction (spontaneous healing group, SHG) and the first 20 patients who had PRF adjunct (PRF group, PG). Healing was evaluated by analyzing the variations in terms of PPD (Probing Pocket Depth), REC (Recession), CAL (Level of Clinical Attachment), BoP (Bleeding on Probing) and GI (Gingival Index) from Baseline to further follow-ups at 1 month and 3 months. The disto-vestibular (DV) and disto-lingual (DL) PPD values of the second mandibular molar were measured at Baseline and after three months in the two groups. Patients of the PG group showed lower PPD values at 1 month and 3 months postoperatively: DV: 3.6±1.09 - DL: 3.5±1.15 and DV: 2.5±0.83 - DL: 2.6±1.09, respectively. Patients belonging to the SHG also showed lower PPD values, reporting respectively the following DV values after 3 months: 2.7±0.86 - DL: 2.75±0. 85. However, there was no statistically significant difference comparing the results obtained in PG and SHG groups at 1 and 3 months (p>0.05). The insertion of PRF inside the post-extraction alveolus of the mandibular third molar leads to limited improvement in terms of periodontal healing, compared to extraction therapy only.
本研究的目的是评估下颌第二磨牙远中部位的牙周愈合情况,比较第三磨牙拔除治疗时,拔牙窝内使用PRF与不使用PRF辅助治疗的效果。研究样本由40例连续接受下颌第三磨牙拔除术的患者组成。患者分为两组:最后20例仅接受拔牙治疗的参与者(自然愈合组,SHG)和最初20例接受PRF辅助治疗的患者(PRF组,PG)。通过分析从基线到1个月和3个月进一步随访时的探诊深度(PPD)、退缩(REC)、临床附着水平(CAL)、探诊出血(BoP)和牙龈指数(GI)的变化来评估愈合情况。在基线和三个月后,测量两组下颌第二磨牙远中前庭(DV)和远中舌侧(DL)的PPD值。PG组患者在术后1个月和3个月时PPD值较低:DV分别为3.6±1.09 - DL为3.5±1.15,以及DV为2.5±0.83 - DL为2.6±1.09。SHG组患者的PPD值也较低,3个月后的DV值分别为:2.7±0.86 - DL为2.75±0.85。然而,比较PG组和SHG组在1个月和3个月时获得的结果,没有统计学上的显著差异(p>0.05)。与仅进行拔牙治疗相比,在下颌第三磨牙拔牙窝内植入PRF,在牙周愈合方面的改善有限。