Table 3.
L‐PRF for periodontal plastic surgery. Papers have been arranged by subapplications (CAF + L‐PRF versus CAF, CAF + L‐PRF versus CAF + CTG, L‐PRF versus EMD)
| Authors (year) | Study design, Duration | No. of participants baseline (end), gender, age (mean/range), Smoking (?, No, Yes) | Groups C: control T: test | L‐PRF preparation | Surgical protocol | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CAF + L‐PRF versus CAF | ||||||
| Aroca et al. (2009) |
RCT Split‐mouth Not blind 6 months |
20 – (20) 15 ♀, 5 ♂ Mean age: 31.7 Range: 22–47 Smoking: No or ≤20 cig/day |
C: n = 21, CAF T: n = 21, CAF + L‐PRF |
Hardware:a
Setting: 3000 r.p.m./10 min. |
4? L‐PRF membrane Modified CAF 10 ml blood/clot |
CAF + L‐PRF
versus
CAF
SS more root coverage at 3 months (91.5% versus 80%) and 6 months (88% versus 81%) in favour of control group (p < 0.01). NSSD for PD reduction in both groups. more CAL gain (2.6 versus 2.5 mm) and GTH (0.0 versus 0.3 mm) in favour of control group (p > 0.05). |
| Padma et al. (2013) |
RCT Split‐mouth Not blind 6 months |
15 – (15) Gender: ? Mean age: ? Range: 18–35 Smoking: No |
C: n = 15, CAF T: n = 15, CAF + L‐PRF |
Hardware: ? Setting: 3000 r.p.m./10 min. |
1 L‐PRF membrane CAF 10 ml blood/clot |
CAF + L‐PRF
versus
CAF
SS more root coverage (100% versus 68%) in favour of L‐PRF group (p < 0.05). SS more WKG (2.4 versus 2.2 mm) in favour of L‐PRF group (p < 0.05). |
| Gupta et al. (2015) |
RCT Parallel Not blind 6 months |
26 – (26) 10 ♀, 16 ♂ Mean age: 37 ± 9 Range: ? Smoking: No |
C: n = 15, CAF T: n = 15, CAF + L‐PRF |
Hardware:b
Setting: 2700 r.p.m./12 min. |
1 L‐PRF membrane Modified CAF 10 ml blood/clot |
CAF + L‐PRF
versus
CAF
NSSD for outcomes in both groups for any parameter (p > 0.05). |
| Thamaraiselvan et al. (2015) |
RCT Parallel Single‐blind 6 months |
20 – (20) 2 ♀, 18 ♂ Mean age: ? Range: 21–47 Smoking: No |
C: n = 10, CAF T: n = 10, CAF + L‐PRF |
Hardware: ? Setting: 3000 r.p.m./10 min. |
1 L‐PRF membrane + surgical site rinsed with L‐PRF exudate CAF 10 ml blood/clot |
CAF + L‐PRF
versus
CAF
NSSD for outcomes in both groups for any parameter (p > 0.05). |
| CAF + L‐PRF versus CAF + CTG | ||||||
| Jankovic et al. (2012) |
RCT Split‐mouth Single‐blind 6 months |
15 – (15) 10 ♀, 5 ♂ Mean age: ? Range: 19–47 Smoking: No |
C: n = 15, CAF + CTG T: n = 15, CAF + L‐PRF |
Hardware: ? Setting: 3000 r.p.m./10 min. |
1 L‐PRF membrane CAF 10 ml blood/clot |
CAF + L‐PRF
versus
CAF + CTG
NSSD for PD, CAL and root coverage for L‐PRF and CTG group (p > 0.05). SS more gain of keratinized tissue width (0.8 versus 1.4 mm) for CTG group (p < 0.05). SS enhanced healing in L‐PRF group (p < 0.05). |
| Eren & Atilla (2014) |
RCT Split‐mouth Single‐blind 6 months |
27 – (22) 13 ♀, 9 ♂ Mean age: 34 ± 13 Range 18.5 Smoking: No |
C: n = 22, CAF + SCTG T: n = 22, CAF + L‐PRF |
Hardware:c
Setting: 400 g/12 min |
1 L‐PRF membrane CAF 10 ml blood/clot |
CAF + L‐PRF
versus
CAF + CTG
NSSD for root coverage in L‐PRF group (92.7%) and control group (94.2%) (p > 0.05). NSSD for complete root coverage in L‐PRF group (72.7%) and control group (77.3%) (p > 0.05). |
| Keceli et al. (2015) |
RCT Split‐mouth Single‐blind 6 months |
40 – (40) 27 ♀, 13 ♂ Mean age: 40 ± 7 Range: ? Smoking: No |
C: n = 20, CAF + CTG T: n = 20, CAF + CTG + L‐PRF |
Hardware: ? Setting: 3000 r.p.m./10 min. |
1 L‐PRF membrane CAF 10 ml blood/clot |
CAF + L‐PRF
versus
CAF + CTG
NSSD for outcomes in both groups for any parameter (p > 0.05). |
| Tunali et al. (2015) |
RCT Split‐mouth Single‐blind 12 months |
10 – (10) 6 ♀, 4 ♂ Mean age: 34.2 Range: 25–52 Smoking: No |
C: n = 10, CAF + CTG T: n = 10, CAF + L‐PRF |
Hardware:a
Setting: 2700 r.p.m./12 min. |
1 L‐PRF membrane CAF 10 ml blood/clot |
CAF + L‐PRF
versus
CAF + CTG
Similar outcomes in both groups for any parameter. |
| L‐PRF versus EMD | ||||||
| Jankovic et al. (2010) |
RCT Split‐mouth Not blind 12 months |
20 – (20) 12 ♀, 8 ♂ Mean age: ? Range: 21–48 Smoking: No |
C: n = 20, CAF + EMD T: n = 20, CAF + L‐PRF |
Hardware: ? Setting: 3000 r.p.m./10 min. |
1 L‐PRF membrane Modified CAF 10 ml blood/clot |
L‐PRF versus EMD More complete root coverage (65% versus 60%) in L‐PRF group. Similar WKG between groups. |
C, control group; CAF, coronally advanced flap; CAL, clinical attachment level; CTG, connective tissue graft; EMD, Emdogain®; GTH, gingival thickness; PD, pocket depth; SCTG, subepithelial connective tissue graft; T, test group; WKG, width of keratinized gingiva.
a
EBA 20, Hettich GmbH & Co KG, Tuttlingen, Germany.
b
RC‐4, REMI, Mumbai, India.
c
Nüve Laboratory Equipments, NF200, Ankara, Turkey.