The effect of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) on maxillary incisor retraction rate

Abstract

Objective To investigate the efficiency of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) injection on maxillary incisor retraction rate. Materials and Methods The study included 40 patients (23 women and 17 men; mean age; 20.7 ± 1.45) with Class II Division 1 malocclusion. The treatment plan for all patients was extraction of the maxillary first premolars and canine distalization, followed by retraction of the maxillary incisors. Patients were randomly divided into two groups. The study group received injectable platelet-rich fibrin (i-PRF) two times with an interval of 2 weeks; the control group did not receive i-PRF. In both groups, the measurements were bilaterally assessed as the distances between the lateral and canine teeth on the plaster models at five time points. The rate of incisor movement was evaluated by Student's t-test, analysis of variance, and Tukey honestly significant difference tests. Statistical significance was set as P < .05. Results The average movements of incisors were significantly higher in the study group than the control group at all time points (P < .05). According to the within-group comparison, none of the measurements showed any significant differences between the right and left sides in both groups at all time points (P > .05). While the movement of incisors was significantly higher in the study group in the week following the PRF injection compared to the other weeks (P < .05), there were no significant differences in the control group at all-time points (P > .05). Conclusions Applying i-PRF significantly increased the rate of maxillary incisor retraction at all time intervals. Platelet-rich fibrin injection can be an effective method for shortening treatment duration.

Platelet-rich derivatives for accelerating the rate of orthodontic tooth movement - a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…All included studies in this systematic review were split-mouth clinical trials except for the study by Karakasli et al which was a randomized control trial. [21] A total of 133 patients were enrolled in split-mouth trials and 40 patients were enrolled in the RCT by Karakasli et al Out of the included studies, four were carried out over 12 weeks. [21][22][23][24] Two studies were carried out over a period of 5 months.…”

“…[21] A total of 133 patients were enrolled in split-mouth trials and 40 patients were enrolled in the RCT by Karakasli et al Out of the included studies, four were carried out over 12 weeks. [21][22][23][24] Two studies were carried out over a period of 5 months. [25,26] e studies by El-Timamy et al and Tehranchi et al were carried out over 4 months.…”

“…[27,28] e study by Nemtoi et al was carried out for 6 months. [16] Four out of the nine studies included iPRF, [21,23,24,26] two studies used iPRP, [22,27] and the remaining used LPRF membrane and PRF plugs as intervention. [16,25,28] In the studies using i-PRP, the administration was done at 0, 3, and 6 weeks by El-Timamy et al [27] and only once before retraction by Ali et al, [22] Erdur et al, and Karakasli et al administered PRF twice immediately after extraction of premolar teeth and during the 2 nd week of distalization.…”

“…[16,25,28] In the studies using i-PRP, the administration was done at 0, 3, and 6 weeks by El-Timamy et al [27] and only once before retraction by Ali et al, [22] Erdur et al, and Karakasli et al administered PRF twice immediately after extraction of premolar teeth and during the 2 nd week of distalization. [21,23] Zeitounlouian et al administered i-PRF twice, just before refraction and 4 weeks later. [26] Karci et al administered i-PRF only once before canine distalization [24] and in the studies by [16,25,28] All included studies reported on the amount of canine distal movement except the study by Karakasli et al, in which incisor distal movement was measured.…”

Innovative Concepts and Recent Breakthrough for Engineered Graft and Constructs for Bone Regeneration: A Literature Systematic Review

“…These alterations have been mainly observed in patients with implant rehabilitations with at least three or more units and also in patients with metabolic, cardiovascular, renal deficiency and diabetes comorbidities [ 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ]. The need to develop new, more efficient materials and techniques for functional and aesthetic rehabilitations remains a priority for researchers in the dental field [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 ]. A biomaterial that is used as a bone substitute should possess certain qualitative criteria: biocompatibility, which represents the capability of providing osseointegration without causing inflammatory reactions [ 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 ], osteoconductivity, the natural properties that allow cell activity, reproduction and amplification, and at last osteoinductive properties, or to be capable of triggering the bio-chemical and modulating processes, so stem cells can differentiate into osteoblasts, osteoclasts and osteocytes and induce osteogenesis, which is related to the formation of a new bone matrix [ 1 , 33 , 34 , 35 ].…”