A clinical and histological evaluation of platelet-rich fibrin and CGF for root coverage procedure using coronally advanced flap: A split-mouth design

Krishnakumar, Dhanadivya; Mahendra, Jaideep; Ari, Geetha; Perumalsamy, Rajapriya

doi:10.4103/ijdr.ijdr_16_18

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A root coverage of 100% was achieved with both PRF and CGF membranes. Despite this, the side treated with CGF showed less postoperative discomfort and accelerated wound healing (by the 10th postoperative day), with respect to the side treated with PRF [42].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Concentrated Growth Factors vs. Leukocyte-and-Platelet-Rich Fibrin for Enhancing Postextraction Socket Healing. A Longitudinal Comparative Study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Platelet concentrates (PCs) have been used for over 20 years in dentistry, as an adjunct to oral surgery procedures, to improve hard and soft tissue healing and control postoperative symptoms. Among various PCs, Leukocyte and Platelet-Rich Fibrin (L-PRF) has become very popular due to its excellent cost-effectiveness ratio, and to the simple preparation protocol, but comparative clinical studies with other PCs are lacking. The aim of this split-mouth cohort study was to evaluate the effect of Concentrated Growth Factors (CGF), a recently introduced PC, as compared to L-PRF for enhancing post-extraction socket healing. Methods: Patients in need of bilateral tooth extractions were included. Each side was treated with either CGF or L-PRF. Pain, socket closure and healing index were the main outcomes. Results: Forty-five patients (24 women), aged 60.52 ± 11.75 years (range 37–87 years) were treated. No significant difference in outcomes was found, except for Pain at day 1 (p < 0.001) and socket closure in the vestibulo-palatal/lingual dimension at day 7 post-extraction (p = 0.04), both in favor of CGF. Conclusions: based on the present results, CGF proved to be as effective and safe as L-PRF, representing a valid alternative option for improving alveolar socket healing and reducing postoperative discomfort.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…In 2019, a case report was published of a 21-year old patient with bilateral multiple gingival recession, treated by coronally advanced flap [42]. PRF and CGF were applied bilaterally during the root coverage procedure, and the outcome of the treatment after three months was compared.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Concentrated Growth Factors vs. Leukocyte-and-Platelet-Rich Fibrin for Enhancing Postextraction Socket Healing. A Longitudinal Comparative Study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Growth factor (GF) is reserved in the alpha granules in platelet, which contains high quantities of GFs, such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), transforming growth factor-β1 (TGF-β1) and β2 (TGF-β2), fibroblast growth factor (FGF), platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) and insulin-like growth factor (IGF) [11,12]. GFs play an important role in the modulation of healing after dental implant placement, include stimulation of cell proliferation, matrix remodeling and angiogenesis [13,14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical applications of concentrated growth factors membrane for sealing the socket in alveolar ridge preservation: a randomized controlled trial

Liu

Jiang

et al. 2022

Int J Implant Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of concentrated growth factor (CGF) membrane for the sealing of alveolar socket in alveolar ridge preservation (ARP). A total of 22 patients with 24 alveolar sockets were recruited and divided randomly into CGF group and Bio-Gide collagen membrane group. The soft tissue wound healing rate was calculated using intraoral scanner at 3, 7, and 14 days after ARP, and the bone resorption volume at 1, 3, and 5 mm below the alveolar ridge was measured by CBCT at 6 months postoperation. The keratinized gingival width was also measured before and 6 months after ridge preservation. In terms of soft tissue healing rate, the CGF group exhibited significant higher than that of Bio-Gide group at both 7 and 14 days after surgery (P < 0.05). However, there was no significantly different in bone resorption rate and the width of keratinized gingival after 6 months (P > 0.05). Therefore, the use of CGFs membranes for wound closure in ARP is a reliable method, but more clinical data are needed to prove it.

show abstract

Evaluation of the efficacy of sticky bone and concentrated growth factor membrane along with a coronally advanced flap as compared to coronally advanced flap alone in the treatment of Miller’s Class I and Class II gingival recession defects

Mitra

Kandawalla

Potdar

et al. 2022

Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: Gingival recessions are commonly seen in the dentally cognizant population as well as those with limited access to dental attention. When root coverage is planned, the ultimate goal is to obtain complete root coverage, thus restoring the lost gingival unit covering the root. Aims: To determine the efficacy of sticky bone and concentrated growth factor (CGF) membrane along with a coronally advanced flap (CAF) as compared to CAF alone in treating Miller’s Class I and Class II gingival recessions (Cairo RT1). Settings and Design: The current study was a randomized double-blind controlled trial on 15 subjects using a split-mouth design. Materials and Methods: Fifteen subjects who were systemically healthy and had recession sites (30 sites) were randomly assigned to two groups: Group A (test group = CAF + CGF + sticky bone) and Group B (control group = CAF alone). Clinical outcome was assessed with parameters such as recession depth, recession width, keratinized gingival width, gingival mucosal thickness, and relative attachment level (RAL), and these were assessed at baseline and 1, 3, and 6 months. Results: A distinct improvement was observed in the depth and width of recession, RAL, keratinized gingival width, and mucosal thickness of the gingiva in the two groups from baseline to 6 months. Statistical significance was not seen on intergroup comparisons. Conclusions: Thus, clinical outcomes revealed noticeable improvement for both the groups. However, statistically, the efficacy of CGF and sticky bone was not perceived to be superior to that of CAF alone.

show abstract

A clinical and histological evaluation of platelet-rich fibrin and CGF for root coverage procedure using coronally advanced flap: A split-mouth design

Cited by 4 publications

References 1 publication

Concentrated Growth Factors vs. Leukocyte-and-Platelet-Rich Fibrin for Enhancing Postextraction Socket Healing. A Longitudinal Comparative Study

Concentrated Growth Factors vs. Leukocyte-and-Platelet-Rich Fibrin for Enhancing Postextraction Socket Healing. A Longitudinal Comparative Study

Clinical applications of concentrated growth factors membrane for sealing the socket in alveolar ridge preservation: a randomized controlled trial

Evaluation of the efficacy of sticky bone and concentrated growth factor membrane along with a coronally advanced flap as compared to coronally advanced flap alone in the treatment of Miller’s Class I and Class II gingival recession defects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About