AI Article Synopsis
- - The systematic review compared platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) with various treatments for root coverage procedures in patients with certain types of gingival recessions, using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as the basis for evaluation.
- - Out of 976 articles, 17 RCTs were selected, showing that PRF significantly improved root coverage and clinical attachment levels compared to the coronally advanced flap (CAF) alone, but not significantly affecting other outcomes like keratinized mucosa width or probing depth.
- - Although PRF showed benefits, connective tissue grafts (CTG) outperformed PRF in terms of keratinized mucosa width and root coverage, indicating that combining PRF with CAF can be effective for certain ging
Article Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the use of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) with other commonly utilized treatment modalities for root coverage procedures.
Materials And Methods: The eligibility criteria comprised randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the performance of PRF with that of other modalities in the treatment of Miller class I or II (Cairo RT I) gingival recessions. Studies were classified into 5 categories as follows: (1) coronally advanced flap (CAF) alone vs CAF/PRF, (2) CAF/connective tissue graft (CAF/CTG) vs CAF/PRF, (3) CAF/enamel matrix derivative (CAF/EMD) vs CAF/PRF, (4) CAF/amnion membrane (CAF/AM) vs CAF/PRF, and (5) CAF/CTG vs CAF/CTG/PRF. Studies were evaluated for percentage of relative root coverage (rRC; primary outcome), clinical attachment level (CAL), keratinized mucosa width (KMW), and probing depth (PD) (secondary outcomes).
Results: From 976 articles identified, 17 RCTs were included. The use of PRF statistically significantly increased rRC and CAL compared with CAF alone. No change in KMW or reduction in PD was reported. Compared with PRF, CTG resulted in statistically significantly better KMW and RC. No statistically significant differences were reported between the CAF/PRF and CAF/EMD groups or between the CAF/PRF and CAF/AM groups for any of the investigated parameters.
Conclusions: The use of CAF/PRF improved rRC and CAL compared with the use of CAF alone. While similar outcomes were observed between CAF/PRF and CAF/CTG for CAL and PD change, the latter group led to statistically significantly better outcomes in terms of rRC and KTW. In summary, the use of PRF in conjunction with CAF may represent a valid treatment modality for gingival recessions exhibiting adequate baseline KMW.
Clinical Relevance: The data indicate that the use of PRF in conjunction with CAF statistically significantly improves rRC when compared with CAF alone but did not improve KMW. Therefore, in cases with limited baseline KMW, the use of CTG may be preferred over PRF.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03400-7 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!