4.5 Article

The efficacy of platelet-rich fibrin as a scaffold in regenerative endodontic treatment: a retrospective controlled cohort study

Journal

BMC ORAL HEALTH
Volume 18, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-018-0598-z

Keywords

Apical periodontitis; Human immature permanent tooth; Blood clot; Platelet-rich fibrin; Regenerative endodontic treatment

Funding

  1. Joint Funds for the Innovation of Science and Technology, Fujian Province [2016Y9024]
  2. Fujian Medical University Professor Academic Development Foundation [JS14031]
  3. Scientific and Technological Innovation Leading Talent Fund of School and Hospital of Stomatology, Fujian Medical University [2015-KQYY-LJ-4]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Blood Clot (BC) or platelet concentrates have been used as scaffold in regenerative endodontic treatment (RET). The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the performance of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) with BC in inducing root development and periapical lesion healing after tooth revascularization. Methods: Five patients receiving RET using PRF as a scaffold were matched 1:1 to a previous cohort of 5 patients who underwent tooth revascularization by provoking periapical bleeding. Clinical signs and symptoms were examined at follow-ups. Periapical lesion healing and root development were monitored radiographically. The resolution of clinical signs and symptoms as well as periapical radiolucency was observed in all patients (100%). Results: Root elongation, dentinal wall thickening and apex closure were found in most cases (80% in both groups). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of clinical sign resolution, root development and periapical healing. Conclusions: Within the limits of this study, PRF achieved comparable outcomes to BC in terms of clinical sign and symptom resolution, periapical lesion healing and continued root development in RET.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available