TY - JOUR
T1 - Use of platelet-rich fibrin for the treatment of gingival recessions
T2 - a systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Miron, Richard J.
AU - Moraschini, Vittorio
AU - Del Fabbro, Massimo
AU - Piattelli, Adriano
AU - Fujioka-Kobayashi, Masako
AU - Zhang, Yufeng
AU - Saulacic, Nikola
AU - Schaller, Benoit
AU - Kawase, Tomoyuki
AU - Cosgarea, Raluca
AU - Jepsen, Soren
AU - Tuttle, Delia
AU - Bishara, Mark
AU - Canullo, Luigi
AU - Eliezer, Meizi
AU - Stavropoulos, Andreas
AU - Shirakata, Yoshinori
AU - Stähli, Alexandra
AU - Gruber, Reinhard
AU - Lucaciu, Ondine
AU - Aroca, Sofia
AU - Deppe, Herbert
AU - Wang, Hom Lay
AU - Sculean, Anton
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020, Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Copyright:
Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/8/1
Y1 - 2020/8/1
N2 - Objectives: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the use of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) with other commonly utilized treatment modalities for root coverage procedures. Materials and methods: The eligibility criteria comprised randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the performance of PRF with that of other modalities in the treatment of Miller class I or II (Cairo RT I) gingival recessions. Studies were classified into 5 categories as follows: (1) coronally advanced flap (CAF) alone vs CAF/PRF, (2) CAF/connective tissue graft (CAF/CTG) vs CAF/PRF, (3) CAF/enamel matrix derivative (CAF/EMD) vs CAF/PRF, (4) CAF/amnion membrane (CAF/AM) vs CAF/PRF, and (5) CAF/CTG vs CAF/CTG/PRF. Studies were evaluated for percentage of relative root coverage (rRC; primary outcome), clinical attachment level (CAL), keratinized mucosa width (KMW), and probing depth (PD) (secondary outcomes). Results: From 976 articles identified, 17 RCTs were included. The use of PRF statistically significantly increased rRC and CAL compared with CAF alone. No change in KMW or reduction in PD was reported. Compared with PRF, CTG resulted in statistically significantly better KMW and RC. No statistically significant differences were reported between the CAF/PRF and CAF/EMD groups or between the CAF/PRF and CAF/AM groups for any of the investigated parameters. Conclusions: The use of CAF/PRF improved rRC and CAL compared with the use of CAF alone. While similar outcomes were observed between CAF/PRF and CAF/CTG for CAL and PD change, the latter group led to statistically significantly better outcomes in terms of rRC and KTW. In summary, the use of PRF in conjunction with CAF may represent a valid treatment modality for gingival recessions exhibiting adequate baseline KMW. Clinical relevance: The data indicate that the use of PRF in conjunction with CAF statistically significantly improves rRC when compared with CAF alone but did not improve KMW. Therefore, in cases with limited baseline KMW, the use of CTG may be preferred over PRF.
AB - Objectives: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the use of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) with other commonly utilized treatment modalities for root coverage procedures. Materials and methods: The eligibility criteria comprised randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the performance of PRF with that of other modalities in the treatment of Miller class I or II (Cairo RT I) gingival recessions. Studies were classified into 5 categories as follows: (1) coronally advanced flap (CAF) alone vs CAF/PRF, (2) CAF/connective tissue graft (CAF/CTG) vs CAF/PRF, (3) CAF/enamel matrix derivative (CAF/EMD) vs CAF/PRF, (4) CAF/amnion membrane (CAF/AM) vs CAF/PRF, and (5) CAF/CTG vs CAF/CTG/PRF. Studies were evaluated for percentage of relative root coverage (rRC; primary outcome), clinical attachment level (CAL), keratinized mucosa width (KMW), and probing depth (PD) (secondary outcomes). Results: From 976 articles identified, 17 RCTs were included. The use of PRF statistically significantly increased rRC and CAL compared with CAF alone. No change in KMW or reduction in PD was reported. Compared with PRF, CTG resulted in statistically significantly better KMW and RC. No statistically significant differences were reported between the CAF/PRF and CAF/EMD groups or between the CAF/PRF and CAF/AM groups for any of the investigated parameters. Conclusions: The use of CAF/PRF improved rRC and CAL compared with the use of CAF alone. While similar outcomes were observed between CAF/PRF and CAF/CTG for CAL and PD change, the latter group led to statistically significantly better outcomes in terms of rRC and KTW. In summary, the use of PRF in conjunction with CAF may represent a valid treatment modality for gingival recessions exhibiting adequate baseline KMW. Clinical relevance: The data indicate that the use of PRF in conjunction with CAF statistically significantly improves rRC when compared with CAF alone but did not improve KMW. Therefore, in cases with limited baseline KMW, the use of CTG may be preferred over PRF.
KW - Gingival recession
KW - L-PRF
KW - Periodontal plastic surgery
KW - Platelet-rich fibrin
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85087307393&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85087307393&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00784-020-03400-7
DO - 10.1007/s00784-020-03400-7
M3 - Review article
C2 - 32591868
AN - SCOPUS:85087307393
VL - 24
SP - 2543
EP - 2557
JO - Clinical Oral Investigations
JF - Clinical Oral Investigations
SN - 1432-6981
IS - 8
ER -