A Surgical Reentry Study on the Influence of Platelet‐Rich Plasma in Enhancing the Regenerative Effects of Bovine Porous Bone Mineral and Guided Tissue Regeneration in the Treatment of Intrabony Defects in Humans

• Published in: Journal of periodontology (1970) 2009-06, Vol.80 (6), p.915-923
• Main Authors: Camargo, Paulo M., Lekovic, Vojislav, Weinlaender, Michael, Divnic‐Resnik, Tihana, Pavlovic, Marija, Kenney, E. Barrie
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Alveolar Bone Loss - pathology; Alveolar Bone Loss - surgery; Alveolar Process - pathology; Animals; Biological and medical sciences; Bone Matrix - transplantation; Bone Regeneration - physiology; Bone Substitutes - therapeutic use; Cardiac dysrhythmias; Cardiology. Vascular system; Cattle; Collagen; Dental Plaque Index; Dentistry; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Guided tissue regeneration; Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal - methods; Heart; Humans; Male; Medical sciences; Membranes, Artificial; Middle Aged; Minerals - therapeutic use; Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology; Periodontal Attachment Loss - classification; Periodontal Attachment Loss - surgery; Periodontal Index; Periodontal Pocket - classification; Periodontal Pocket - surgery; periodontal regeneration; Platelet-Rich Plasma; Surgical Flaps; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 0022-3492; 1943-3670
• DOI: 10.1902/jop.2009.080600

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the additional benefits provided by the incorporation of platelet‐rich plasma (PRP) into a regenerative protocol consisting of bovine porous bone mineral (BPBM) and guided tissue regeneration (GTR) in the treatment of intrabony defects in humans. Methods: Twenty‐three paired intrabony defects were surgically treated using a split‐mouth design. Defects were treated with BPBM/GTR/PRP (experimental group) or with BPBM/GTR (control group). The clinical parameters evaluated included changes in probing depth, clinical attachment level, and defect fill as revealed by reentry surgeries at 6 months. Results: Preoperative probing depths, attachment levels, and transoperative bone measurements were similar for the two groups. Post‐surgical measurements taken at 6 months revealed that both treatment modalities resulted in a significant decrease in probing depth, gain in clinical attachment, and bone fill of the defects compared to baseline. Postoperative differences observed between the two groups were 0.72 ± 0.36 mm at buccal sites and 0.90 ± 0.32 mm at lingual sites for probing depth, 0.82 ± 0.41 mm at buccal sites and 0.78 ± 0.38 at lingual sites for gain in clinical attachment, and 0.85 ± 0.36 mm at buccal sites and 0.94 ± 0.42 mm at lingual sites for defect fill, all favoring the experimental sites. However, none of the differences were statistically significant. Conclusion: Within the limitations related to using a small sample size, PRP did not significantly augment the effects of BPBM and GTR in promoting the clinical resolution of intrabony defects.