PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 6, 2026National Journal of Maxillofacial Surgery0 citations

Comparative evaluation of the efficacy of leukocyte platelet-rich fibrin block and advanced platelet-rich fibrin combined with bone graft in treating infrabony defects

View Full Paper
PKP Roshan KumarEMEllora MadanSCSohini Chakraborty

Key Points

  • This paper compares the efficacy of leukocyte-PRF block and advanced PRF with bone graft in treating infrabony defects.
  • Forty sites with infrabony defects were randomly assigned to two groups: A-PRF with bone graft and L-PRF block.
  • Inclusion criteria included probing pocket depth ≥5 mm and clinical attachment loss ≥3 mm.
  • Measurements of gingival index, probing pocket depth, clinical attachment loss, crestal level, and bone fill were recorded at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months.
  • Both groups showed significant reductions in gingival index at 6 months (P < 0.05).
  • In Group A, probing pocket depth decreased from 6.85 to 3.75 mm, and clinical attachment loss decreased from 11.1 to 8.0 mm at 6 months.
  • In Group B, probing pocket depth reduced from 7.5 to 3.25 mm, and clinical attachment loss decreased from 11.25 to 7.0 mm at 6 months.
  • Intergroup comparison showed better outcome for probing pocket depth in Group A, while clinical attachment loss differences were statistically non-significant.

Abstract

Background: The primary objective of periodontal therapy is to restore the compromised periodontium through regenerative processes. Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) is a vital biomaterial in this context due to its rich concentration of growth factors within a fibrin matrix. Aim: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of leukocyte-PRF block (L-PRF block) and advanced PRF (A-PRF) combined with bone graft (hydroxyapatite) in treating infrabony defects (IBDs). Materials and Methods: Forty sites with IBDs were randomly assigned to two groups: Group A received A-PRF with bone graft, and Group B received L-PRF block. Criteria for inclusion included probing pocket depth (PPD) ≥5 mm, clinical attachment loss (CAL) ≥3 mm, gingival index (GI) ≥1, and evidence of IBDs ≥ 3 mm observed via cone beam computed tomography. Measurements of GI, PPD, CAL, crestal level (CL), and bone fill were recorded at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Results: Both groups showed significant reductions in GI at the 6-month mark ( P < 0.05). In Group A, PPD decreased from 6.850 ± 1.2258 (baseline) to 3.750 ± 0.9105 (6 months), and CAL decreased from 11.100 ± 1.8035 to 8.000 ± 2.2243. In Group B, PPD reduced from 7.500 ± 0.8885 to 3.250 ± 0.5501, and CAL reduced from 11.250 ± 1.5517 to 7.000 ± 1.7472 at 6 months. Intergroup comparisons showed a better outcome for PPD in Group A, while CAL differences were statistically non-significant. IBD measurements and bone fill comparisons between the groups were also non-significant. Conclusion: In conclusion, both L-PRF block and A-PRF combined with bone graft showed significant improvements in assessed parameters over six months. However, there were no significant differences between the two groups, indicating both treatments are effective for addressing IBDs.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Kumar et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69fa989404f884e66b532528https://doi.org/10.4103/njms.njms_155_24
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper