Journal of periodontology · 2010
Treatment of intrabony periodontal defects with platelet-rich plasma versus platelet-poor plasma combined with a bovine-derived xenograft: a controlled clinical trial.
Сравнительное исследованиеКонтролируемое клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yilmaz Selcuk, Kabadayi Canan, Ipci Sebnem Dirikan, Cakar Gokser, Kuru Bahar
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to assess the healing outcomes of intrabony defects after treatment with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) versus platelet-poor plasma (PPP) combined with bovine-derived xenograft (BDX).
METHODS: Using a split-mouth design, a total of 79 intrabony defects with an intrabony component of ≥3 mm in 20 patients were treated either with PRP/BDX (group 1) or PPP/BDX (group 2). At baseline and 12 months after surgery, plaque and sulcus bleeding indices, probing depth (PD), relative attachment level, recession, and probing and radiographic bone levels were recorded.
RESULTS: After 12 months, groups 1 and 2 presented a mean PD reduction of 3.87 ± 0.86 and 3.76 ± 0.80 mm, recession of 1.35 ± 0.68 and 1.58 ± 0.54 mm, attachment gain of 2.51 ± 0.97 and 2.18 ± 0.87 mm, clinical bone gain of 2.18 ± 0.86 and 2.09 ± 0.89 mm, and radiographic bone gain of 2.11 ± 0.87 and 2.19 ± 0.96 mm, respectively. Intergroup differences were found to be insignificant.
CONCLUSIONS: Within its limits, these results suggest that the outcomes of the treatment after PRP/BDX and PPP/BDX applications in intrabony defects are similar. When the platelet counts are taken into consideration, PPP seems to demonstrate similar clinical efficacy as the PRP.
METHODS: Using a split-mouth design, a total of 79 intrabony defects with an intrabony component of ≥3 mm in 20 patients were treated either with PRP/BDX (group 1) or PPP/BDX (group 2). At baseline and 12 months after surgery, plaque and sulcus bleeding indices, probing depth (PD), relative attachment level, recession, and probing and radiographic bone levels were recorded.
RESULTS: After 12 months, groups 1 and 2 presented a mean PD reduction of 3.87 ± 0.86 and 3.76 ± 0.80 mm, recession of 1.35 ± 0.68 and 1.58 ± 0.54 mm, attachment gain of 2.51 ± 0.97 and 2.18 ± 0.87 mm, clinical bone gain of 2.18 ± 0.86 and 2.09 ± 0.89 mm, and radiographic bone gain of 2.11 ± 0.87 and 2.19 ± 0.96 mm, respectively. Intergroup differences were found to be insignificant.
CONCLUSIONS: Within its limits, these results suggest that the outcomes of the treatment after PRP/BDX and PPP/BDX applications in intrabony defects are similar. When the platelet counts are taken into consideration, PPP seems to demonstrate similar clinical efficacy as the PRP.