Platelet-rich fibrin is a blood concentrate system used for soft tissue and bone tissue regeneration. In the last decade, platelet rich fibrin (PRF) has been widely used in different indication fields, particularly in oral and maxillofacial surgery. This review is aimed to investigate the level of scientific evidence of published articles related to the use of PRF for bone and soft tissue regeneration in dentistry and maxillofacial surgery. An electronic literature research using the biomedical search engine "National Library of Medicine" (PubMed-MEDLINE) was performed in May 2017. A total of 392 articles were found, 72 of which were classified for each indication field. When comparing PRF with biomaterials vs biomaterial alone in sinus lift (5 studies; IIa), no statistically significant differences were detected. Socket preservation and ridge augmentation using PRF significantly enhanced new bone formation compared to healing without PRF (seven studies Ib, IIa, IIb). Reepithelialization and bone regeneration was achieved in 96 of 101 patients diagnosed with medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (5 studies, III). In periodontology, PRF alone (six studies; Ib, IIa, IIb) or its combination with biomaterials (six studies; Ib, IIa, IIb) significantly improved the pocket depth and attachment loss compared to a treatment without PRF. Over 70% of the patients were part of studies with a high level of scientific evidence (randomized and controlled prospective studies). This published evidence, with a high scientific level, showed that PRF (38 articles) is a beneficial tool that significantly improves bone and soft tissue regeneration. However, the clinical community requires a standardization of PRF protocols to further examine the benefit of PRF in bone and soft tissue regeneration in reproducible studies, with a higher scientific level of evidence.

Preliminary findings support that liquid PRF exhibits long-term analgesic effects in most patients with painful TMJ ID.

Background: Recent advances in 3D printing technology have enabled the emergence of new educational and clinical tools for medical professionals. This study provides an exemplary description of the fabrication of 3D-printed individualised patient models and assesses their educational value compared to cadaveric models in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Methods: A single-stage, controlled cohort study was conducted within the context of a curricular course. A patient's CT scan was segmented into a stereolithographic model and then printed using a fused filament 3D printer. These individualised patient models were implemented and compared against cadaveric models in a curricular oral surgery hands-on course. Students evaluated both models using a validated questionnaire. Additionally, a cost analysis for both models was carried out. P-values were calculated using the Mann-Whitney U test. Results: Thirty-eight fourth-year dental students participated in the study. Overall, significant differences between the two models were found in the student assessment. Whilst the cadaveric models achieved better results in the haptic feedback of the soft tissue, the 3D-printed individualised patient models were regarded significantly more realistic with regard to the anatomical correctness, the degree of freedom of movement and the operative simulation. At 3.46 € (compared to 6.51 €), the 3D-printed patient individualised models were exceptionally cost-efficient. Conclusions: 3D-printed patient individualised models presented a realistic alternative to cadaveric models in the undergraduate training of operational skills in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Whilst the 3D-printed individualised patient models received positive feedback from students, some aspects of the model leave room for improvement.