No abstract

No abstract

Prosthodontic maintenance was restricted to loss of retention for all systems. Within the observation period of this study, the self-aligning attachment system showed a higher rate of maintenance than the ball attachments. The patients' oral health-related life qualities as well as the biologic parameters do not differ when using the three abutment systems.

The potential use of autologous thrombocytic growth factors to accelerate bone regeneration requires improved methods of isolating platelet-rich plasma (PRP). In addition to discontinuous cell separation, a second method by which PRP is produced at the point-of-care has now become available. In this study, growth factor levels in PRP from these two sources were compared. Whole blood was drawn from 115 healthy donors (73 males, 42 females) aged 21 - 62 years (mean 36, SD 10). The PRP was separated by the blood bank (BB) using the discontinuous cell separation method or at the 'point-of-care' by the so-called 'buffy coat' method (analogous to the Curasan PRP Kit). Growth factor content differed significantly for TGF-beta1 (BB 268.65+/-70.77 ng/ml, Curasan 95.02+/-60.67 ng/ml (sign test P<0.001)) and PDGF-AB (BB 133.59+/-46.26 ng/ml, Curasan 233.70+/-111.86 ng/ml (P<0.001)), while the content of IGF-I (BB 85.37+/-25.58 ng/ml, Curasan 101.72+/-47.7 ng/ml (P<0.160)) showed no significant difference. The higher thrombocyte count in the BB PRP (BB 1434300+/-351960/ microl, Curasan 908.500+/-492.30/microl) seems to result in higher TGF-beta1 levels, while the higher leukocyte count in the Curasan PRP (BB 160+/-320/ microl, Curasan 30130+/-12500/microl) seems to result in higher PDGF-AB levels. The similar IGF-I levels in the two preparations might merely reflect similar amounts of plasma in the PRP produced by each approach.

An important reason to improve methods of isolating platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is the potential use of autologous thrombocyte growth factors. In addition to discontinuous cell separation, two methods for extracting PRP that can be performed directly by the surgeon are now available. This study compared the suitability of these two methods for the preparation of PRP. Whole blood was drawn from 47 healthy donors (18 men, 29 women) aged 20-59 years (mean 29.9, SD 7.7). For each donor, PRP was separated by the PCCS method (PCCS Kit, 3i Implant Innovations, Palm Beach Gardens, FL, USA) and by the Curasan method (analogous to the PRP kit, Curasan, Kleinostheim, Germany). Thrombocyte counts differed significantly (sign test P = 0.001) between the donor blood (mean 290,000/ micro l, SD 86,000/ microl), the PCCS PRP preparation (mean 2,209,000/ microl, SD 901,000/ microl), and the Curasan PRP (mean 1,075,000/ micro l, SD 636,000/ microl). The correlation between the thrombocyte count in the PRP and the thrombocyte count in the donor whole blood was greater for the PCCS PRP (Spearman's correlation coefficient rS = 0.60) than for the Curasan PRP (r(S) = 0.34). A slight, clinically irrelevant, influence of gender on thrombocyte concentration in whole blood was found, but no influence of age was detected.