Background: A clinical and radiographic study of implants (2)
Despite the shape of a membrane, the PRF membrane does not have the properties of a resorbable barrier membrane [21, 22], due to its fast degradation in the same manner as a natural blood clot (1–2 weeks) [23]. Therefore, the PRF membrane is not believed to replace a barrier membrane in the classic understanding of guide bone regeneration (GBR), but rather to enhance the healing capacity of the periosteum and inwards to the augmented bone. Based on the positive effect of PRF in clinical and in vitro studies, it may therefore be speculated that adding PRF to a bone augmentation procedure may improve the vitality of the augmented bone, thereby causing accelerated bone remodeling [24]. In other words, dental implants can be inserted into more vital bone compared to the gold standard procedure, which from a clinical point of view is preferred to obtain optimal osseointegration [5].
In a recently published systematic review on clinical studies, it was concluded that PRF facilitates bone regeneration, although the evidence was moderate [25]. In oral and maxillofacial surgery, accelerated soft tissue healing has been demonstrated [23]. However, to our knowledge, no previous studies have presented the results of clinical and radiographic evaluation of implants placed in autogenous bone grafts covered by PRF membranes. Therefore, the purpose of this randomised, controlled clinical trial (RCT) was to compare the survival and clinical performance of implants placed in sites previously augmented with autogenous bone grafts covered by either a PRF membrane (PRF group) or a standard procedure (gold standard) involving coverage of the autogenous bone graft using a DBBM and a resorbable collagen membrane (control group). Our null hypothesis was that no difference between the test (PRF group) and the control group would exist.
Serial posts:
- A clinical and radiographic study of implants placed in autogenous bone grafts
- Background: A clinical and radiographic study of implants (1)
- Background: A clinical and radiographic study of implants (2)
- Material & methods: A clinical and radiographic study of implants (1)
- Material & methods: A clinical and radiographic study of implants (2)
- Material & methods: A clinical and radiographic study of implants (3)
- Material & methods: A clinical and radiographic study of implants (4)
- Material & methods: A clinical and radiographic study of implants (5)
- Material & methods: A clinical and radiographic study of implants (6)
- Results: A clinical and radiographic study of implants (1)
- Results: A clinical and radiographic study of implants (2)
- Results: A clinical and radiographic study of implants (3)
- Results: A clinical and radiographic study of implants (4)
- Discussion: A clinical and radiographic study of implants (1)
- Discussion: A clinical and radiographic study of implants (2)
- Discussion: A clinical and radiographic study of implants (3)
- Abbreviations & References: A clinical and radiographic study of implants
- Table 1 Demographics and survival rates of implants and implant crowns
- Table 2 Radiographic peri-implant marginal bone level in mm
- Table 3 Radiographic marginal bone level and clinical recession on neighbouring tooth surface
- Table 4 Patient-related outcome measures at baseline and at the final follow-up
- Figure 1. Intraoperative photos illustrating bone harvesting
- Figure 2. Box plot of the radiographic peri-implant marginal bone level
- Figure 3. Data from the VAS of patient-related outcome measures at the time of mounting of the implant-supported crown and at the final follow-up of the PRF and control group