Does a combination of platelet‐rich plasma and decalcified freeze‐dried bone allograft offer advantages over decalcified freeze‐dried bone allograft alone when using pocket depth and clinical attachment level as markers for periodontal healing? A literature review. Issue 2 (17th January 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Jethwa, Jashan; Ireland, Robert S.; Chan, David
• Is Part Of: Journal of investigative and clinical dentistry. Volume 10:Issue 2(2019)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2019-01-17
• Subjects: clinical attachment level -- decalcified freeze‐dried bone allograft -- infrabony defect -- platelet‐rich plasma -- pocket depth; Dentistry -- Periodicals; Mouth -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Mouth Diseases -- Periodicals; Tooth Diseases -- Periodicals; 617.6
• DOI: 10.1111/jicd.12397
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2041-1618

Abstract

Abstract: The aim of the present study was to investigate whether a combination of platelet‐rich plasma (PRP) and decalcified freeze‐dried bone allograft (DFDBA) offers advantages over DFDBA and saline in infrabony defects. The objectives were to primarily evaluate changes in clinical attachment level (CAL) and secondarily changes in pocket depth (PD). A search was performed of electronic databases (Medline, PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science), as well as hand searching and reference list searching. Only randomized, controlled trials published up until 30 March 2018 were included that had a follow‐up period of at least 6 months. Four papers met the eligibility criteria and were critically appraised using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement and put through the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. In three of the four studies, clinically and significantly greater CAL gains and PD reductions were observed in patients who received PRP and DFDBA in comparison to those who received DFDBA and saline ( P < 0.05). Methodological heterogeneity existed among the studies, especially in the preparation of PRP and the type of infrabony defect. This made it difficult to draw clear conclusions, but despite this, the studies could still be regarded, as significant as they showed a low risk of bias.