Resumen de Comparison of Platelet-Rich Plasma, Bovine Porous Bone Mineral, and Guided Tissue Regeneration Versus Platelet-Rich Plasma and Bovine Porous Bone Mineral in the Treatment of Intrabony Defects:: A Reentry Study
Vojislav Lekovic, Dr. Paulo M. Camargo, Michael Weinlaender, Nikola Vasilic, E. Barrie Kenney
Background: A combination of platelet-rich plasma (PRP), bovine porous bone mineral (BPBM), and guided tissue regeneration (GTR) has been shown to be effective in promoting reduction in probing depth, gain in clinical attachment, and defect fill in intrabony periodontal lesions. The individual role played by PRP, BPBM, and GTR in this combined therapy is unclear and needs to be elucidated. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of 2 regenerative techniques for intrabony defects in humans: a combination of PRP/BPBM/GTR versus a combination of PRP/BPBM.
Methods: Twenty-one patients participated in the study. Using a split-mouth design, interproximal bony defects were surgically treated with either a combination of PRP/BPBM/GTR or PRP/BPBM. The primary outcomes of the study included changes in probing depth, attachment level, and defect fill as revealed by reentry surgeries at 6 months post-treatment.
Results: At 6 months postoperatively, clinical examination of the treated defects revealed that both treatment modalities resulted in significant probing depth reduction and clinical attachment gain compared to baseline values. Probing depth improvement was 3.98 ± 1.02 mm on buccal and 3.94 ± 0.94 mm on lingual sites for the PRP/BPBM group and 4.19 ± 0.88 mm on buccal and 4.21 ± 0.92 mm on lingual sites for the PRP/BPBM/GTR group. Gain in clinical attachment was 3.78 ± 0.72 mm on buccal and 3.84 ± 0.76 mm on lingual sites for the PRP/BPBM group and 4.12 ± 0.78 mm on buccal and 4.16 ± 0.83 mm on lingual sites for the PRP/BPBM/GTR group. Reentry surgeries revealed similar defect fill for both treatment groups (PRP/BPBM group: 4.82 ± 1.34 mm on buccal and 4.74 ± 1.30 mm on lingual sites; PRP/BPBM/GTR group: 4.96 ± 1.28 mm on buccal and 4.78 ± 1.32 mm on lingual sites). None of the differences between the 2 treatment groups was statistically significant.
Conclusions: The results of this study show that both combinations of PRP/BPBM/GTR and PRP/BPBM are effective in the treatment of intrabony defects present in patients with advanced chronic periodontitis. The results also suggest that GTR adds no clinical benefit to PRP/BPBM. Further studies are necessary to assess the individual role played by PRP and BPBM in the clinical outcome achieved with their combination.
