The use of platelet‐rich fibrin to enhance the outcomes of implant therapy: A systematic review

• Published in: Clinical oral implants research Vol. 29; no. S18; pp. 6 - 19
• Main Authors: Strauss, Franz Josef, Stähli, Alexandra, Gruber, Reinhard
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Denmark Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.10.2018; John Wiley and Sons Inc
• Subjects: Alveolar Process - physiology; alveolar ridge preservation; Bone growth; Bone healing; Bone Regeneration; Clinical trials; Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods; Dentistry; Fibrin; guided bone regeneration; Healing; Heterogeneity; Humans; implant therapy; Literature searches; Medical research; Osseointegration; Pain; Platelet-Rich Fibrin - physiology; Platelets; platelet‐rich fibrin; Preservation; Randomization; Regeneration; Regeneration (physiology); sinus floor elevation; Supplement; Surgery; Surgical implants; Teeth; The 5; Therapy; guided bone regeneration; alveolar ridge preservation; sinus floor elevation; platelet-rich fibrin; implant therapy
• ISSN: 0905-7161; 1600-0501
• DOI: 10.1111/clr.13275

Objective To assess the impact of platelet‐rich fibrin (PRF) on implant dentistry. The primary focused question was as follows: What are the clinical, histological, and radiographic outcomes of PRF administration for bone regeneration and implant therapy? Method A systematic literature search comprised three databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane followed by a hand search of relevant scientific journals. Human studies using PRF for bone regeneration and implant therapy were considered and articles published up to December 31, 2017 were included. Eligible studies were selected based on the inclusion criteria. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and controlled clinical trials (CCT) were included. Results In total, 5,963 titles were identified with the search terms and by hand search. A total of 12 randomized controlled trials (RCT) met the inclusion criteria and were chosen for data extraction. Included studies focused on alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction, osseointegration process, soft tissue management, bone augmentation, bone regeneration after sinus floor elevation and surgical peri‐implantitis treatment. Overall, the risk of bias was moderate or unclear. Nine studies showed superior outcomes for PRF for any of the evaluated variables, such as ridge dimension, bone regeneration, osseointegration process, soft tissue healing. Three studies failed to show any beneficial effects of PRF. No meta‐analysis could be performed due to the heterogeneity of study designs. Conclusions There is moderate evidence supporting the clinical benefit of PRF on ridge preservation and in the early phase of osseointegration. It remains unclear whether PRF can reduce pain and improve soft tissue healing. More research support is necessary to comment on the role of PRF to improve other implant therapy outcomes.