Yewale Manasi, Bhat Subraya, Kamath Abhay, Tamrakar Aditi, Patil Vathsala, Algal Adel S
Department of Periodontology, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India.
Periodontics, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Faisal University, Dammam KSA, Saudi Arabia.
J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2021 Apr-Jun;11(2):225-233. doi: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2021.01.016. Epub 2021 Feb 3.
To compare the clinical and radiographic effectiveness of A PRF Plus as an adjuctive material to osseous bone graft in socket preservation and ridge augmentation.
Twenty patients with need to preserve extraction socket in non-molar sites planning for further prosthetic rehabilitation were divided into two groups. Test Group (Group A) was treated with A PRF Plus membrane and Sybograf plus ™ (70% HA and 30 %β TCP) bone graft. The Control Group (Group B) was treated with Sybograf plus ™ (70% HA and 30% βTCP) bone graft. Both groups had same socket preservation surgical technique.
Both Group A and Group B showed significant improvement in clinical and radiographic parameters. Mean socket length, Vertical Resorption reduction in Group A was 1.48 whereas in Group B was 1.67 which is statistically significant. (p ≤ 0.05). Changes in Horizontal width reduction at 1,3, and 5 mm depth of the socket for both groups were not statistically significant. The Gain in socket fill for Group A and B 6 months postoperatively was 1185.30HU ± 473.21 and 966.60 HU ± 273.27 respectively. But intergroup comparison was not statistically significant. (p = 0.17). There were no significant statistical differences in postoperative pain in Group A and Group B as subjects experienced moderate amount of pain. The assessment of post-operative swelling showed that only 30% subjects in Group A reported with swelling. Whereas 80% subjects in Group B complained of post-operative swelling.
The results of the present study proved utilisation of A PRF Plus as a promising adjunct to conventional regenerative therapy for socket preservation.
比较A PRF Plus作为骨移植辅助材料在牙槽窝保存和牙槽嵴增高术中的临床及影像学效果。
将20例需要在非磨牙区保存拔牙窝并计划进一步进行修复重建的患者分为两组。试验组(A组)采用A PRF Plus膜和Sybograf plus™(70%羟基磷灰石和30%β-磷酸三钙)骨移植治疗。对照组(B组)采用Sybograf plus™(70%羟基磷灰石和30%β-磷酸三钙)骨移植治疗。两组采用相同的牙槽窝保存手术技术。
A组和B组在临床和影像学参数上均有显著改善。A组牙槽窝平均长度、垂直吸收减少量为1.48,而B组为1.67,具有统计学意义(p≤0.05)。两组在牙槽窝1、3和5mm深度处水平宽度减少的变化无统计学意义。A组和B组术后6个月牙槽窝填充增加量分别为1185.30HU±473.21和966.60HU±273.27。但组间比较无统计学意义(p = 0.17)。A组和B组术后疼痛无显著统计学差异,因为受试者均经历了中度疼痛。术后肿胀评估显示,A组只有30%的受试者报告有肿胀。而B组80%的受试者抱怨术后肿胀。
本研究结果证明,A PRF Plus作为传统再生治疗牙槽窝保存的辅助材料具有应用前景。