Home Current issue Instructions
About us Archives Login 
Editorial board Search articles Contact us
Home Print this page Email this page Users Online: 76
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 96-102

Evaluation of platelet-rich fibrin and platelet-rich plasma in impacted mandibular third molar extraction socket healing and bone regeneration: A split-mouth comparative study

1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Nanded Rural Dental College and Research Center, Nanded, Maharashtra, India
2 Department of Oral Diagnosis and Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, SEGi University, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia
3 Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, SEGi University, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia
4 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dental Sciences, Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences Deemed University, Karad, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Suresh Kandagal Veerabhadrappa
Faculty of Dentistry, SEGi University, No. 9 Jalan Teknologi, Taman Sains, Petaling Jaya, Kota Damansara, Selangor-47810
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ejgd.ejgd_133_19

Rights and Permissions

Objective: To compare the efficacy of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in postoperative extraction socket healing, pain, swelling, and bone regeneration after surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars.Materials and Methods: The present split-mouth comparative study was conducted on 20 patients undergoing bilateral identical mandibular third molar extraction. PRF was placed on the right side of the third molar extraction socket, and PRP was placed on the contralateral side. Evaluation of soft tissue healing, pain, and swelling was carried out on immediate postoperative and on the 1stday, 3rdday, and 7thday. Radiological bone density was assessed on the 3rdand 6thmonths postoperatively.Results: Soft tissue healing was better in PRF site. The postoperative pain scores in PRF site were less compared with PRP site; however, there was no significant difference between immediate postoperative period (P< 0.15), 1stday (P< 0.96), 3rdday (P< 0.58), and 7thday (P< 0.78). Measurement of swelling on the 1stday (P< 0.0020) and 3rdday (P< 0.0010) showed significant difference on PRF site, but it ceases to nonsignificant on the 7thday (P< 1.00). Postoperative mean bone density at the 3rdand 6thmonths was higher in PRF site, which was statistically significant (P< 0.00001).Conclusion: Our results showed a significant improvement in the soft tissue wound healing and increase in bone density in PRF site than PRP site. There was significant reduction of the swelling found on the 1stand 3rdday at PRF site as compared to the PRP site. Although the postoperative pain scores were less in PRF site, this was not statistically significant among the two groups.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded124    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal