Platelet concentrates for topical and infiltrative use -commonly termed Platetet-Rich Plasma (PRP) or Platelet-Rich Fibrin (PRF) -are used or tested as surgical adjuvants or regenerative medicine preparations in most medical fields, particularly in sports medicine and orthopaedic surgery. Even if these products offer interesting therapeutic perspectives, their clinical relevance is largely debated, as the literature on the topic is often confused and contradictory. The long history of these products was always associated with confusions, mostly related to the lack of consensual terminology, characterization and classification of the many products that were tested in the last 40 years. The current consensus is based on a simple classification system dividing the many products in 4 main families, based on their fibrin architecture and cell content: Pure Platelet-Rich Plasma (P-PRP), such as the PRGF-Endoret technique; Leukocyte-and Platelet-Rich Plasma (L-PRP), such as Biomet GPS system; Pure Platelet-Rich Fibrin (P-PRF), such as Fibrinet; Leukocyteand Platelet-Rich Fibrin (L-PRF), such as Intra-Spin L-PRF. The 4 main families of products present different biological signatures and mechanisms, and obvious differences for clinical applications. This classification serves as a basis for further investigations of the effects of these products. Perspectives of evolutions of this classification and terminology are also discussed, particularly concerning the impact of the cell content, preservation and activation on these products in sports medicine and orthopaedics.

L-PRF (leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin) is one of the four families of platelet concentrates for surgical use and is widely used in oral and maxillofacial regenerative therapies. The first objective of this article was to evaluate the mechanical vibrations appearing during centrifugation in four models of commercially available table-top centrifuges used to produce L-PRF and the impact of the centrifuge characteristics on the cell and fibrin architecture of a L-PRF clot and membrane. The second objective of this article was to evaluate how changing some parameters of the L-PRF protocol may influence its biological signature, independently from the characteristics of the centrifuge. In the first part, four different commercially available centrifuges were used to produce L-PRF, following the original L-PRF production method (glass-coated plastic tubes, 400 g force, 12 minutes). The tested systems were the original L-PRF centrifuge (Intra-Spin, Intra-Lock, the only CE and FDA cleared system for the preparation of L-PRF) and three other laboratory centrifuges (not CE/FDA cleared for L-PRF): A-PRF 12 (Advanced PRF, Process), LW-UPD8 (LW Scientific) and Salvin 1310 (Salvin Dental). Each centrifuge was opened for inspection, two accelerometers were installed (one radial, one vertical), and data were collected with a spectrum analyzer in two configurations (full-load or half load). All clots and membranes were collected into a sterile surgical box (Xpression kit, Intra-Lock). The exact macroscopic (weights, sizes) and microscopic (photonic and scanning electron microscopy SEM) characteristics of the L-PRF produced with these four different machines were evaluated. In the second part, venous blood was taken in two groups, respectively, Intra-Spin 9 ml glass-coated plastic tubes (Intra-Lock) and A-PRF 10 ml glass tubes (Process). Tubes were immediately centrifuged at 2700 rpm (around 400 g) during 12 minutes to produce L-PRF or at 1500 rpm during 14 minutes to produce A-PRF. All centrifugations were done using the original L-PRF centrifuge (Intra-Spin), as recommended by the two manufacturers. Half of the membranes were placed individually in culture media and transferred in a new tube at seven experimental times (up to 7 days). The releases of transforming growth factor β-1 (TGFβ-1), platelet derived growth factor AB (PDGF-AB), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP-2) were quantified using ELISA kits at these seven experimental times. The remaining membranes were used to evaluate the initial quantity of growth factors of the L-PRF and A-PRF membranes, through forcible extraction. Very significant differences in the level of vibrations at each rotational speed were observed between the four tested centrifuges. The original L-PRF centrifuge (Intra-Spin) was by far the most stable machine in all configurations and always remained under the threshold of resonance, unlike the three other tested machines. At the classical speed of production of L-PRF, the level of undesirable vibra...

The use of L-PRF as a socket filling material to achieve preservation of horizontal and vertical ridge dimension at three  months after tooth extraction is beneficial.

AimTo analyse the regenerative potential of leucocyte‐ and platelet‐rich fibrin (L‐PRF) during periodontal surgery.Materials and MethodsAn electronic and hand search were conducted in three databases. Only randomized clinical trials were selected and no follow‐up limitation was applied. Pocket depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), bone fill, keratinized tissue width (KTW), recession reduction and root coverage (%) were considered as outcome. When possible, meta‐analysis was performed.ResultsTwenty‐four articles fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Three subgroups were created: intra‐bony defects (IBDs), furcation defects and periodontal plastic surgery. Meta‐analysis was performed in all the subgroups. Significant PD reduction (1.1 ± 0.5 mm, p < 0.001), CAL gain (1.2 ± 0.6 mm, p < 0.001) and bone fill (1.7 ± 0.7 mm, p < 0.001) were found when comparing L‐PRF to open flap debridement (OFD) in IBDs. For furcation defects, significant PD reduction (1.9 ± 1.5 mm, p = 0.01), CAL gain (1.3 ± 0.4 mm, p < 0.001) and bone fill (1.5 ± 0.3 mm, p < 0.001) were reported when comparing L‐PRF to OFD. When L‐PRF was compared to a connective tissue graft, similar outcomes were recorded for PD reduction (0.2 ± 0.3 mm, p > 0.05), CAL gain (0.2 ± 0.5 mm, p > 0.05), KTW (0.3 ± 0.4 mm, p > 0.05) and recession reduction (0.2 ± 0.3 mm, p > 0.05).ConclusionsL‐PRF enhances periodontal wound healing.