Table 2.
L‐PRF for alveolar ridge preservation. Papers have been arranged by sub‐applications (L‐PRF versus “natural healing”: bone quality, L‐PRF versus PRP, L‐PRF pain, L‐PRF uptake technetium‐99 m methylene diphosphonate)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L‐PRF versus natural healing: bone quality | ||||||
| Singh et al. (2012) |
RCT Split‐mouth Not blind 3 months |
20 – (20) 10 ♀, 10 ♂ Mean age: 32 Range 18–50 Smoking: No |
20 bilateral impacted 3rd molar: C: n = 20, no filling T: n = 20, L‐PRF filling |
Hardware: ? Setting: 3000 r.p.m./10 min. |
1 L‐PRF clot 0 L‐PRF membrane 5–10? ml blood/clot |
L‐PRF
versus
natural healing
SS better Healing Index scores for L‐PRF group (at 7th day p = 0.0015) NSSD in trabecular bone formation SS higher bone density at 12 weeks for L‐PRF group |
| Hauser et al. (2013) |
RCT Parallel Double‐blind 8 weeks |
23 – (22) 14 ♀, 9 ♂ Mean age: 47 Range: 22–75 Smoking: ? |
Premolar extractions: C: n = 7 T1: n = 9, L‐PRF filling T2: n = 6, L‐PRF filling + flap |
Hardware: ? Setting: 2700 r.p.m./12 min. |
1 L‐PRF clot ? L‐PRF membrane 8 ml blood/clot |
L‐PRF
versus
natural healing
Mean crestal bone loss: control group 0.43 ± ? mm, L‐PRF group 0.06 ± ? mm, and L‐PRF + flap 0.42 ± ? Mm (p < 0.05) L‐PRF + Flap: invasive surgical procedure seemed to neutralize advantages of L‐PRF |
| Suttapreyasri & Leepong (2013) |
RCT Parallel Split‐mouth 8 weeks |
8 – (8) 5 ♀, 3 ♂ Mean age: 22 ± 2 Range 20.3–27.6 Smoking: ? |
10 bilateral premolar extractions: C: n = 10, no filling T: n = 10, L‐PRF filling |
Hardware: a
Setting: 3000 r.p.m./10 min. |
1 L‐PRF clot 0 L‐PRF membrane 10 ml blood/clot |
L‐PRF
versus
natural healing
NSSD between both groups for soft‐tissue healing (p > 0.05) less buccal/lingual resorption for L‐PRF group (1.9 ± 1.1 mm versus 2.6 ± 0.7 mm, p < 0.05) NSSD for radiographic evaluation (at mesial and distal site): L‐PRF 0.7 mm/1.23 mm, control 1.33 mm/1.1 mm. |
| Kumar et al. (2015) |
RCT Parallel Single‐blind 3 months |
31 – (31) Gender: ? Mean age: 26.1 Range: ? Smoking: ? |
3rd molar extractions: C: n = 15, no filling T: n = 16, L‐PRF filling |
Hardware: ? Setting: 3000 r.p.m./10 min. |
1 L‐PRF clot 0 L‐PRF membrane 5 ml blood/clot |
L‐PRF
versus
natural healing
SS more PD reduction (distal 2nd molar) in L‐PRF group (1.5 ± ? mm versus 0.5 ± ? mm). NSSD for bone density after 3 months (p > 0.05) SS less adverse events recorded in L‐PRF group (pain, p = 0.01; swelling, p = 0.02). |
| L‐PRF versus PRP | ||||||
| Yelamali & Saikrishna (2015) |
RCT Split‐mouth Not blind 4 months |
20 – (20) 8 ♀, 12 ♂ Mean age: ? Range: 21–27 Smoking: ? |
20 bilateral impacted 3rd molar: C: PRP: n = 20, PRP filling T: L‐PRF: n = 20, L‐PRF filling |
Hardware: ? Setting: 3000 r.p.m./10 min. |
1 L‐PRF clot 0 L‐PRF membrane 6 ml blood/clot |
L‐PRF
versus
PRP
SS better soft tissue healing for L‐PRF group (p < 0.05). |
| L‐PRF pain | ||||||
| Marenzi et al. (2015) |
RCT Split‐mouth Single‐blind 7 days |
26 – (26) 17 ♀, 9 ♂ Mean age: 53 ± 4 Range: ? Smoking: No or light smokers (<5/day) |
26 bilateral canine/premolar/molar: C: n = 26, no filling T: n = 26, L‐PRF filling |
Hardware: b
Setting: 2700 r.p.m./12 min. |
2–6 L‐PRF clot 0 L‐PRF membrane 9 ml blood/clot |
L‐PRF pain
SS better and faster healing for L‐PRF group at 3 and 7 days (p < 0.05). SS less post‐extraction pain for L‐PRF group (p < 0.05). |
| L‐PRF uptake technetium‐99 m methylene diphosphonate | ||||||
| Gürbüzer et al. (2010) |
RCT Split‐mouth Not blind 4 weeks |
20 – (14) 7 ♀, 7 ♂ Mean age: 24 ± 4 Range: ? Smoking: No |
14 bilateral impacted 3rd molar: C: n = 14, no filling T: n = 14, L‐PRF filling |
Hardware : c
Setting: 400 g/10 min. |
1 L‐PRF clot 0 L‐PRF membrane 10 ml blood/clot |
L‐PRF scintigraphic analysis
NSSD in technetium‐99 m methylene diphosphonate uptake (as indicator of enhanced bone healing): L‐PRF 4.5 ± 1.0 versus control 4.6 ± 1.0) |
| Baslarli et al. (2015) |
RCT Parallel Single‐blind 3 months |
20 – (20) 13 ♀, 7 ♂ Mean age: 23 Range: 10–34 Smoking: No |
20 bilateral impacted 3rd molar: C: n = 20, no filling T: n = 20, L‐ PRF filling |
Hardware : ? Setting: 3000 r.p.m./10 min. |
0 L‐PRF clot 1 L‐PRF membrane 9 ml blood/clot |
L‐PRF scintigraphic analysis
NSSD in technetium‐99 m methylene diphosphonate uptake (as indicator of enhanced bone healing) at 3 months: L‐PRF 4.1 ± 1.0 versus 3.9 ± 1.1). |
C, control group; L‐PRF, leucocyte‐ and platelet rich fibrin; NSSD, no statistically significant difference; PD, Pocket depth; RCT, randomized control trials; SS, statistically significant; T, test group.
aEBA 20, Hettich GmbH&Co, KG, Tuttlingen, Germany.
bIntra‐Spin L‐PRF kit, Intra‐Lock, Boca‐Raton, FL, USA.
cUniversal 320 Hettich, Tuttlingen, Germany.