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.

AimTo analyse the effect of leucocyte‐ and platelet‐rich fibrin (L‐PRF) on bone regeneration procedures and osseointegration.Materials and MethodsAn electronic and hand search was conducted in three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane). Only randomized clinical trials, written in English where L‐PRF was applied in bone regeneration and implant procedures, were selected. No follow‐up restrictions were applied.ResultsA total of 14 articles were included and processed. Three subgroups were created depending on the application: sinus floor elevation (SFE), alveolar ridge preservation and implant therapy. In SFE, for a lateral window as well as for the trans‐alveolar technique, histologically faster bone healing was reported when L‐PRF was added to most common xenografts. L‐PRF alone improved the preservation of the alveolar width, resulting in less buccal bone resorption compared to natural healing. In implant therapy, better implant stability over time and less marginal bone loss were observed when L‐PRF was applied. Meta‐analyses could not be performed due to the heterogeneity of the data.ConclusionsDespite the lack of strong evidence found in this systematic review, L‐PRF might have a positive effect on bone regeneration and osseointegration.

All SFE techniques provided sufficient graft volume for implant treatment. All techniques provoke a partially transient swelling of the Schneiderian membrane. All techniques resulted in a decrease in graft volume after 6 weeks; however, no significant differences were obtained between treatments. Furthermore, no statistical significant correlation between the post-operative swelling of the Schneiderian membrane and reduction in graft volume at 6 weeks could be obtained.

L-PRF Block may be a suitable technique to augment deficient alveolar ridges.