4.6 Review

Additive Effect of Platelet Rich Fibrin with Coronally Advanced Flap Procedure in Root Coverage of Miller's Class I and II Recession Defects-A PRISMA Compliant Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal

MATERIALS
Volume 13, Issue 19, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma13194314

Keywords

gingival recession; periodontal disease; periodontal regeneration; blood platelet

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the additive effect of leukocyte and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) on coronally advanced flap (CAF) procedures in root coverage of Miller's class I and II gingival recession defects. Review methodology: A comprehensive search in MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus and CENTRAL (the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), along with an additional hand search, provided eight randomized clinical trials to be included in this review. A total of 167 patients with 470 gingival recession defects were analyzed. A meta-analysis was carried out to assess the change in gingival thickness (GT), width of keratinized gingiva (WKG), root coverage percentage (%RC), clinical attachment level (CAL) and recession depth (RD) at all follow-ups between CAF alone and CAF + L-PRF groups for all included studies. A subgroup analysis was carried out based on recession type (single/multiple). Results: Overall, a significant improvement in GT, CAL and RD was found when treated with CAF + L-PRF. There was a trend for a positive effect in terms of an increase in WKG when using L-PRF, especially in the treatment of single recession, though significance was not achieved (p = 0.08 overall). The results of heterogeneity among the subgroups were varied and were found to be greater than 91.3% for GT and 32.8% for WKG. Conclusion: L-PRF when used in addition to CAF showed favorable results for the treatment of class I and II gingival recession defects.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available