Indian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental Research
Indian Journal of Dental Research   Login   |  Users online:

Home Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size         


ORIGINAL RESEARCH Table of Contents   
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 27  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 502-507
Comparative evaluation of platelet-rich fibrin and autogenous bone graft for the treatment of infrabony defects in chronic periodontitis: Clinical, radiological, and surgical reentry

1 Department of Periodontology, Daswani Dental College and Research Centre, Kota, Rajasthan, India
2 Department of Periodontology, Hitkarini Dental College and Hospital, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, India
3 Department of Prosthodontics, Daswani Dental College and Research Centre, Kota, Rajasthan, India

Correspondence Address:
Sneha Galav
Department of Periodontology, Daswani Dental College and Research Centre, Kota, Rajasthan
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.195634

Rights and Permissions

Context: Both intraoral autogenous bone grafting (ABG) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) offer a useful treatment modality for periodontal regeneration of intrabony defects (IBDs). However, predictable regeneration in patients with severe attachment loss is a challenge to the practitioners. Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of PRF with ABG for the treatment of IBDs in chronic periodontitis. Settings and Design: This is a randomized controlled trial. Materials and Methods: Twenty chronic periodontitis patients with IBDs were randomly treated by PRF or ABG. Probing pocket depth (PPD), relative attachment level (RAL), surgical reentry bone fill, and radiographic bone fill (RBF) were recorded at baseline, 3, 6, and 9 months postsurgery, respectively. Statistical Analysis: Student's t-test was used for continuous variables. All means were expressed as mean ± standard deviation and proportions were expressed in percentage. The level of significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: Both PRF and ABG sites produced a significant improvement from baseline to 9 months for all the parameters. However, there was no significant difference between the two treatment modalities in the reduction of PPD and RAL gain at 9 months. In addition, ABG showed significantly greater RBF (30.34%) as compared to PRF (20.22%). Similar findings were supported by surgical reentry, where a surgical reentry of 65.31% at ABG sites and 43.64% at PRF sites was seen. Conclusion: Both ABG and PRF can be used predictably to reconstruct lost periodontal structures as indicated by PPD reduction and RAL gain. However, in terms of osseous defect fill, ABG yields more definitive outcome than PRF.

Print this article     Email this article

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
  Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
  Reader Comments
  Email Alert *
  Add to My List *

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded314    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 19    

Recommend this journal