"Comparison of activated Platelet Rich Fibrin and Platelet Rich Fibrin in osseous regeneration of freshly extracted socket- A double blinded randomized clinical study".

Introduction: Dental extraction is a common oral surgery procedure, but it can lead to unpredictable changes in alveolar bone structure, which can complicate future rehabilitation with prostheses. Socket preservation aims to reduce bone and soft tissue loss after extraction and involves various techniques using different materials. Autogenous bone is considered the gold standard for grafts, while autologous platelet concentrates like platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) have been used for tissue healing. This study aims to radiographically assess the bone remodeling of freshly extracted socket filled with Activated Platelet Rich Fibrin (APRF) and PRF.
Materials and Methods: A randomized controlled study was conducted on 60 patients undergoing tooth extraction as atraumatic as possible. Patients were divided into two groups: one receiving APRF with 10% Calcium Chloride as activating agent and the other PRF. Radiographic assessments were done using Kelley et al. scoring criteria at various time intervals, and statistical analyses were performed to evaluate the results.
Results: In this study we found increased bone density in extracted socket filled with APRF at any given time interval compared to PRF which is statistically significant. The maxilla demonstrated better bone formation compared to the mandible. Gender, age, and site also influenced bone formation, with females showing differences in lamina dura and overall density.
Discussion: PRF is rich in growth factors, promoting osteoblast formation and angiogenesis. Activation with calcium chloride accelerates clot formation and the release of growth factors. This study's radiographic data suggests that APRF may be more effective than PRF in promoting socket preservation and bone formation.
Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
(Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)