Gingival crevicular fluid composition is modified by CP and AAP. MMP-9 and MMP-8 show diagnostic potential for CP and AAP, whereas MMP-2 and TRAP-5 are useful only for CP.

ObjectiveTo 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?MethodA 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsThere 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.

Background Platelet‐rich fibrin (PRF) serves as a reservoir of bioactive molecules to support wound healing and bone regeneration. The beneficial action of PRF might involve macrophage polarization from proinflammatory M1 toward pro‐resolving M2 phenotypes. This study aims to evaluate the effect of PRF on macrophage polarization. Methods Murine primary macrophages and RAW 264.7 cells were exposed to saliva and lipopolysaccharides (LPS) with and without PRF lysates obtained by repeated freeze‐thawing or the secretome of PRF membranes, termed PRF conditioned medium. The expression of the M1 marker genes interleukin 1β (IL1β) and interleukin 6 (IL6) along with the M2 markers arginase‐1 and chitinase‐like 3 (Chil3 or YM1) were evaluated by real time polymerase chain reaction. Immunoassay and immunofluorescence staining were performed for IL6 and p65 translocation, a subunit nuclear factor kappa‐light‐chain‐enhancer of activated B cells (NF‐kB), respectively. Results We report here that PRF lysates and PRF conditioned medium, the latter containing the secretome, greatly decreased the proinflammatory response of primary macrophages and RAW 264.7 cells as indicated by the expression of IL1β and IL6. The anti‐inflammatory activity of PRF lysates was further confirmed by IL6 immunoassay. Moreover, PRF lysates suppressed the translocation of p65 from the cytoplasm into the nucleus after incubation with saliva. In support of M2 polarization, PRF lysates and PRF conditioned medium enhanced the expression of arginase‐1 and YM1 in primary macrophages. Conclusion Our results indicate that PRF holds an anti‐inflammatory activity and shifts the macrophage polarization from an M1 toward an M2 phenotype.