A comparative evaluation of Advanced Platelet-Rich Fibrin (A-PRF) and Platelet-Rich Fibrin (PRF) as a Scaffold in Regenerative Endodontic Treatment of Traumatized Immature Non-vital permanent anterior teeth: a prospective clinical study

• Veena Jayadevan ^[1] ; Paras-Mull Gehlot ^[2] ; Vinutha Manjunath ^[2] ; Subbarao V. Madhunapantula ^[3] ; Jyothi-Swandenahalli Lakshmikanth ^[4]
  1. [1] BDS. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics. JSS Dental College and Hospital. JSS Academy of Higher Education and Research. Sri Shivarathreeshwara Nagar. Mysuru- 570015, Karnataka, India
  2. [2] MDS. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics. JSS Dental College and Hospital. JSS Academy of Higher Education and Research. Sri Shivarathreeshwara Nagar. Mysuru- 570015, Karnataka, India
  3. [3] BSc, B.Ed, M.Sc, Ph.D. Department of Biochemistry. JSS Medical College and Hospital. JSS Academy of Higher Education and Research. Sri Shivarathreeshwara Nagar. Mysuru- 570015, Karnataka, India
  4. [4] M Pharm. Department of Pharmaceutics. JSS College of Pharmacy. JSS Academy of Higher Education and Research. Sri Shivarathreeshwara Nagar. Mysuru- 570015, Karnataka, India

  Mostrar afiliaciones +
• Localización: Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry, ISSN-e 1989-5488, Vol. 13, Nº. 5 (May), 2021, págs. 463-472
• Idioma: inglés
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Resumen

  • Regenerative endodontic treatment (RET) is a promising treatment alternative for traumatized immature non-vital teeth. Advanced platelet-rich fibrin (A-PRF) contains significantly more growth factors than Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) and has not been evaluated as a scaffold in RET. The aim of the present study was to evaluate and compare A-PRF and PRF as scaffolds in the RET concerning periapical healing, and root development of traumatized immature non-vital teeth.

    In the present study, RET was performed on 30 traumatized immature non-vital maxillary incisors in 28 patients aged between 8-27 years. Minimal mechanical debridement and irrigation with 1.5% sodium hypochlorite and 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid was performed. Canals were disinfected using modified triple antibiotic paste consisting of ciprofloxacin, metronidazole and cefaclor. Based on the type of scaffold, teeth were randomly assigned into A-PRF (n=15) and PRF groups (n=15). Periapical healing, apical response and quantitative root dimensions (length and thickness) were analyzed radiographically after 12 months follow-up.

    Nineteen patients with 21 teeth (A-PRF n=11, PRF n=10) completed the follow-up and 9 patients were excluded. Clinically, patients in both the groups were asymptomatic. The survival rates for A-PRF and PRF were 78.5% and 77.5%, respectively. No statistically significant differences were detected between A-PRF and PRF regarding periapical healing and type of apical response (p& 0.05). The difference in the pre-operative and follow-up root thickness and root length in both A-PRF and PRF groups were statistically significant (p< 0.05).

    Based on short-term results of 13 months, both A-PRF and PRF can be used as scaffold in regenerative endodontic treatment of traumatized immature non-vital teeth. A-PRF could be recommended in such cases since it yielded more root dentin thickness which is crucial for reinforcing immature teeth.