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

Vasilena Ivanova, Ivan Chenchev, Stefan Zlatev and Eitan Mijiritsky
Additional contact information
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

IJERPH, 2021, vol. 18, issue 14, 1-14

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.

Keywords: dental implants; allograft; PRF; vital bone; histology; bone biopsy (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/14/7451/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/14/7451/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:14:p:7451-:d:593129

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().