PRP vs PRF: A Systematic Review of their Efficacy in Socket Preservation

Abstract

Introduction- Extraction of a tooth frequently leads to bone loss in the alveolar ridge, which can make the installation of dental implants more challenging. Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) and Platelet rich plasma (PRP) serves as an adjunct to bone grafting in alveolar ridge preservation to enhance bone regeneration. The present systemic review was done to check the efficacy of PRP vs PRF in socket preservation.

Material And Methods- Systematic review was designed and performed following the preferred reporting items of the PRISMA statement. PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EBSCO, google scholar databases were searched. All the randomized clinical trials using PRP and PRF for bone regeneration in alveolar ridge preservation were selected. Data extracted was organized and results were analyzed on the basis of primary and secondary outcome.

Results- There was a statistically significant difference in bone density outcome found in the P-PRP group. The sockets treated with L-PRP exhibited greater bone density compared to the control sockets. A total of 66.6% of the studies demonstrated a significant reduction in postoperative pain with the use of PRF, particularly within the first 1-3 days following tooth extraction. The socket fill was considerably higher in the PRF group compared to spontaneous wound healing in 85% of the investigations.

Conclusion- According to the analysed studies, Platelet-Rich Fibrin (PRF) has been found to be more efficacious than Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) during the initial healing phase, which lasts for 2-3 months after tooth extraction. The existing data does not provide sufficient evidence to make any conclusions on the long-term success of implants in sockets treated with PRF or its combination with biomaterials.