Introduction
Methods
Authors | Year of publication | Number of patients | Follow-up (wks) | Main results | Effect of PRP |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Alissa et al. | 2010 | 23 | 12 | Statistical significant improvement in soft and bone tissuehealing; statistically significant reduced post-operative pain and complications | strong |
Ogundipe et al. | 2011 | 11 | 12 | Statistical significantly reduced pain; improvement in swelling/interincisal mouth opening and bone density but not statistically significant | moderate |
Ruktowski et al. | 2010 | 12 | 25 | Early and significant increased radiographic density over baseline measurements in PRP- treated sites; no significant improvement in post-operative pain and bleeding after PRP application. | moderate |
Celio-Mariano et al. | 2012 | 15 | 1-4-8-12-24 | Significant improvement in bone healing in PRP- treated sites | strong |
Arenaz-Bua et al. | 2012 | 82 | 12-24 | No acceleration of bone formation after PRP treatment. No improvement in pain, swelling, trismus and infection. | weak |
Gurbuzer et al. | 2008 | 12 | 1-4 | No increased osteoblastic activity in PRP treated sites | weak |
Authors | Year of publication | Number of patients | Treatment | Follow-up (wks) | Main results | Effect of PRP |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pradeep et al. | 2009 | 20 | Treatment of furcation defects | 24 | No complete closure of furcation defects | weak |
Menezes et al. | 2012 | 60 | Treatment of infrabony defects | 48-192 | Positive effect of PRP used with other graft materials in infrabony defects but not when used alone | weak |
Saini et al. | 2011 | 20 | Treatment of infrabony defects | 12-24-36 | Positive effect of PRP used with other graft materials in infrabony defects | moderate |
Bharadwaj et al. | 2011 | 10 | Treatment of infrabony defects | 24 | Significant improvement in PD, CAL and bone radio-density | strong |
Ozdemir et al. | 2012 | 14 | Treatment of infrabony defects | 24 | Positive effect of PRP used with other graft materials in infrabony defects but not when used alone | weak |
Harnack et al. | 2009 | 22 | Treatment of infrabony defects | 24 | No improvement in PPD and CAL derived from the adjunt of PRP to other graft material | weak |
Rodrigues et al. | 2011 | Treatment of infrabony defects | 12-24-36 | Better clinical results for PRP used with other graft materials in infrabony defects than with PRP used on its own | weak | |
Dori et al. | 2008 | 26 | Treatment of infrabony defects | 48 | No adjunctive benefit with the use of PRP | weak |
Dori et al. | 2009 | 30 | Treatment of infrabony defects | 48 | No adjunctive benefit with the use of PRP | weak |
Piemontese et al. | 2008 | 60 | Treatment of infrabony defects | 48 | No adjunctive benefit with the use of PRP | weak |
Keceli et al. | 2008 | 40 | Root coverage | 6-36-48 | No adjunctive benefit with the use of PRP | weak |
Authors | Year of publication | Number of patients | Treatment | Follow-up (wks) | Main results | Effect of PRP |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Anitua et al. | 2006 | 295 | Implantology | 8 | Improvement in implant prognosis | strong |
Anand et al. | 2012 | 11 | Implantology | 12-24-36-48 | Improved early bone apposition around the implant | strong |
Gentile et al. | 2010 | 15 | Reconstructive surgery of the jaw | 2-4-12-24 | Efficacy of PRP treatment in terms of patient satisfaction and low-morbidity | strong |
Wojtowicz et al. | 2007 | 16 | Augmentation of mandibular bone | 12 | PRP is more effective than bone marrow, containing CD34+ cells | strong |
Daif | 2012 | 24 | Bone regeneration of mandibular fractures | 1-12-24 | Direct application of the PRP along the fracture lines may enhance bone regeneration in mandibular fractures | strong |
Khairy et al. | 2012 | 15 | Sinus lift | 12-24 | PRP- enriched bone grafts were associated with superior bone density at 6 months post grafting | strong |
Poeschl et al. | 2012 | 14 | Sinus lift | 28 | Increased new bone formation when PRP was used | strong |
Cabbar et al. | 2011 | 10 | Sinus lift | 28 | No statistically significant differences were observed | weak |
Authors | Year of publication | Number of patients | Type of lesion | Treatment options | Follow-up (Mths) | Main results | Effect of PRP |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Curi et al. | 2007 | 3 | Jaw lesions | 6-8 | Resolution of all lesions | strong | |
Lee et al. | 2007 | 2 | Complications of dental implants: oral sinus communication and lesion on the jaw ramus | Closure of the oroantral communication by rotating a large palatally-based pedicle flap over the defect; surgical debridment of the lesion of the ramus | 6-9 | Resolution of pain and complete closure of exposed bone | strong |
Adornato et al. | 2007 | 12 | Soft tissue ulcerations and bone exposure | Marginal resection limited to the alveolar bone | 6 | Ten patients showed complete soft tissue healing | strong |
Cetiner et al. | 2009 | 1 | Exposed necrotic bone in the alveolus | Marginal resection of the mandibular necrotic bone | 6 | Complete healing of the oral mucosa and alveolar bone at the surgical site | strong |
Bocanegra et al. | 2012 | 8 | Exposed necrotic bone in the mandibula and maxilla | Removal of necrotic bone and curettage of the underlying bone | 14 | Fast mucosal healing, reduced need for analgesics and resolution of mouth lesions, without evidence of exposed bone. | strong |
Mozzati et al. | 2012 | 32 | Jaw lesions | Resection of the necrotic bone | The orthopanoramic X-ray and computed tomography performed before and after surgery showed successful outcomes | strong | |
Coviello et al. | 2012 | 7 | Jaw lesions | Surgical debridement and sequestrectomy | 3 | Improvement in wound healing and reduction of bone exposure | strong |