Long-Term Influence of Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) on Dental Implants after Maxillary Augmentation: Implant Survival and Success Rates

Attia, Sameh; Narberhaus, Clara; Schaaf, Helmut; Streckbein, Philipp; Pons-Kühnemann, Jörn; Schmitt, Christian; Neukam, Friedrich Wilhelm; Howaldt, Hans‐Peter; Böttger, Sebastian

doi:10.3390/jcm9020391

Cited by 15 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(54 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, the total 12-year survival rate was 91.4%, and HA-coated implants had a significantly higher 12-year survival rate than titanium implants (93.2% compared to 89%; p < 0.03). Atia et al 34 provided a comparison of the success rates according to Buser et al 17 and Albrektsson et al 16 for SLA implants placed in maxilla previously treated with PRP or augmented solely with an autogenous bone graft. These authors reported a cumulative success rate of 93.3% (97.5% for the bone graft group) according to criteria proposed by Buser et al 17 at 15 years and 1 month of observation.…”

Section: In a Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

PRF versus xenograft in sinus augmentation in case of HA-coating implant placement: A 36-months retrospective study

Dominiak¹,

Karuga-Kuźniewska²,

Popecki³

et al. 2021

Adv Clin Exp Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Sinus lift with a simultaneous implant placement in the residual maxilla is a common technique used worldwide. Nevertheless, choosing an ideal grafting material remains an object of dispute. The use of an autologous blood-derived graft, known as platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), has not yet been recognized to be as good as xenografts and alloplastic materials. However, initial results have been promising.Objectives. To conduct a clinical and radiological comparison of implantation with a simultaneous sinus lift using xenograft or PRF clots. Materials and methods.Thirty sinus lifts with simultaneous implantation were conducted using a lateral window approach and the tent pole technique, with xenograft (group 1 (G 1 )) or PRF (group 2 (G 2 )) as a filling material. To be included in the study, patients must have had an alveolar ridge height of 4-5 mm, no signs of inflammatory processes, good oral hygiene, and no other grafting procedures performed in region of implant insertion. In each case, the measurements taken were probing pocket depth (PPD), height of keratinized tissue (HKT), clinical attachment level (CAL), recession depth/width (RD/RW), and, on panoramic X-rays, marginal bone loss (MBL), grafted sinus high (GSH), and bone gain (BG). Pre-and post-operative treatment was applied to reduce the chance of infection.Results. During the study, 30 implants (hydroxyapatite-coated implants manufactured by SGS -10 mm in length and 4.2 mm in diameter) were placed. The survival rate of implants in both groups was 100% with no implant mobility, pain, paresthesia, or inflammatory processes in the direct vicinity of the implants observed, except in 1 patient. After 36 months of follow-up, the radiological assessments for G 1 were: GSH 4.5 mm, MBL 0.46 mm and BG 4.53 mm; and for G 2 : 3.4 mm, 0.6 mm and 3.4 mm, respectively. Results of the clinical measurements were for G 1 : HKT after 36 months (HKT 36 ) 2.46 mm, CAL 0.47 mm and PPD 2 mm; and for G 2 : HKT 36 3. 13 mm, CAL 0.6 mm and PPD 2.07 mm. Conclusions.After 3 years of follow-up, the results of sinus lifting solely using PRF with simultaneous implantation were promising, especially in terms of soft tissue management. Therefore, PRF can be regarded as an alternative to previously used materials.

show abstract

Section: In a Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

PRF versus xenograft in sinus augmentation in case of HA-coating implant placement: A 36-months retrospective study

Dominiak¹,

Karuga-Kuźniewska²,

Popecki³

et al. 2021

Adv Clin Exp Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, a retrospective study reported no significant difference in MBL between the PRP group and the control group for a longer follow-up period (5 years) [ 48 ]. In addition, 37 patients with implants were followed up for an average of 13 years in the study by Attia et al [ 55 ]. Among them, 17 patients received PRP and 20 patients did not take any treatment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of platelet concentrates on implant stability and marginal bone loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Luo

Hong

et al. 2021

BMC Oral Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Osseointegration is essential for the success and stability of implants. Platelet concentrates were reported to enhance osseointegration and improve implant stability. The purpose of this review is to systematically analyze the effects of platelet concentrates on implant stability and marginal bone loss. Methods Two researchers independently performed searches in the following databases (last searched on 21 July 2021): MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science. In addition, a manual search was carried out on references of relevant reviews and initially included studies. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) on the application of platelet concentrates in the implant surgery procedure were included. The risk of bias of RCTs and CCTs were assessed with a revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2.0) and the risk of bias in non-randomized studies—of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool, respectively. Meta-analyses on implant stability and marginal bone loss were conducted. Researchers used mean difference or standardized mean difference as the effect size and calculated the 95% confidence interval. In addition, subgroup analysis was performed based on the following factors: type of platelet concentrates, method of application, and study design. Results Fourteen studies with 284 participants and 588 implants were included in the final analysis. 11 studies reported implant stability and 5 studies reported marginal bone level or marginal bone loss. 3 studies had high risk of bias. The meta-analysis results showed that platelet concentrates can significantly increase implant stability at 1 week (6 studies, 302 implants, MD 4.26, 95% CI 2.03–6.49, P < 0.001) and 4 weeks (8 studies, 373 implants, MD 0.67, 95% CI 0.46–0.88, P < 0.001) after insertion, significantly reduced marginal bone loss at 3 months after insertion (4 studies, 95 implants, mesial: MD − 0.33, 95% CI − 0.46 to − 0.20, P < 0.001; distal: MD − 0.38, 95% CI − 0.54 to − 0.22, P < 0.001). However, the improvement of implant stability at 12 weeks after insertion was limited (P = 0.10). Subgroup analysis showed that PRP did not significantly improve implant stability at 1 week and 4 weeks after insertion (P = 0.38, P = 0.17). Platelet concentrates only placed in the implant sites did not significantly improve implant stability at 1 week after insertion (P = 0.20). Conclusions Platelet concentrates can significantly improve implant stability and reduce marginal bone loss in the short term. Large-scale studies with long follow‐up periods are required to explore their long-term effects and compare effects of different types. Trial registration This study was registered on PROSPERO, with the Registration Number being CRD42021270214.

show abstract

“…Another factor influencing peri-implant bone loss and dental implant survival is smoking [12,42,[72][73][74][75][76]. According to various studies, smoking has a negative effect on osseointegration [77][78][79][80][81][82][83] and its dose-related impact [84].…”

Section: Smokingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors influencing the failure of dental implants: A Systematic Review

Bazli

khoramabadi

Chahardehi

et al. 2020

jcc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

vascular disease) affecting therapyial preliminary considerations of dental implant treatment. However, in case of HIV-positive patients, the dental implant failure rate would not increase due to affective factors (e.g., prophylactic antibiotic treatment, the administration of active antiretroviral therapy, and control of the CD 4+ T lymphocyte counts). Therefore, these patients have no clinical signs of mobility or infection in this treatment and much more attention should be paid to these patients and they should be treated with controlled oral surgical procedures.

show abstract

Long-Term Influence of Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) on Dental Implants after Maxillary Augmentation: Implant Survival and Success Rates

Cited by 15 publications

References 40 publications

PRF versus xenograft in sinus augmentation in case of HA-coating implant placement: A 36-months retrospective study

PRF versus xenograft in sinus augmentation in case of HA-coating implant placement: A 36-months retrospective study

Effects of platelet concentrates on implant stability and marginal bone loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Factors influencing the failure of dental implants: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About