Background: There is currently no gold standard biomaterial for the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects (PIDs). One of the current options is the use of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF). Objective: To determine the clinical effect of PRF in the treatment of PID through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Materials and Methods: A literature search was conducted up to February 2017 in the following biomedical databases: Pubmed, Embase, Scielo, Science Direct, SIGLE, LILACS and in the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials. The selection criteria included: randomized clinical trials published in the last 5 years, reporting clinical effects (probing depth, clinical insertion level or gingival recession), with a follow-up time equal to or greater than 6 months, and sample size larger than or equal to 10 patients reporting the use of PRF as a treatment for PID. The methodological quality of the studies was analyzed using the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions as a reference. Results: The search strategy yielded 20 articles. A reduction in probing depth and an increase in clinical insertion level or a reduction in gingival recession is reported, when using PRF alone or in combination with another biomaterial or substance that stimulates tissue regeneration. Conclusion: The literature suggests that the use of PRF in the treatment of PIDs has a beneficial clinical effect when compared to control treatments.

Introduction: Orthodontists constantly seek to reduce the duration of their provided treatments and the patient's time in the office. For this reason, different bracket systems are currently used in orthodontics; an example is selfligating brackets (SLB) which are believed to offer advantages over conventional brackets (CB). Objective: To evaluate and compare the clinical periodontal effect of CB and SLB through a systematic review and a meta-analysis. Material and Method: A search of the literature was carried out until December 2017, in the biomedical databases: PubMed, Embase, SciELO, ScienceDirect, SIGLE, LILACS, BBO, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The selection criteria of the studies were defined as such: randomized clinical trials, up to 5 years old and that report the clinical effects (probing depth, bleeding on probing, gingival index and plaque index) from the use of CB and SLB. The risk of study bias was analyzed through the Cochrane Handbook of systematic reviews of interventions. Results: The search strategy resulted in 12 articles, eight of which reported no difference in the reduction in probing depth, bleeding on probing, gingival index and plaque index (p>0.05) between CB and SLB. Conclusion: The literature reviewed suggests that there are no differences in the periodontal clinical effect among patients who received orthodontic treatment with CB or SLB.

No abstract