الفهرس 
Review of Literature
Inclusion criteriaOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 142 |  |  |
| | | from | 142 | | |
Abstract
The current study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of the platelets rich fibrin as a grafting material in post extraction socket in the anterior maxillary region to reduce bone loss versus Bio-Oss® Xenograft using histological analysis.
Forty two fresh extraction sockets in twenty seven patients with average age of 35.5±5 years old. The patients were randomally allocated into three main groups. The study group consisted of sockets where PRF was placed, the positive control group consisted of sockets where bio-oss® xenogenic bone graft were placed along with collagen plug and the negative control group consisted of sockets that were left to heal without the use of any grafting materials. Each group was further sub-divided into two subgroups: core biopsy harvested and implants placed at three months, and at six months.
All samples were assessed histologically and histomorphometrically.
Results were tabulated and assessed using Multivariant ANOVA test to assess effect of time and socket augmentation material on quantity and quality of newly formed bone.
Histologic and histomorphometric assessment using H&E and MT showed that, the percentage of newly formed bone after tooth extraction was governed by many factors including; healing time, grafting materials used, while bone quality, is affected by time only regardless the type of the augmented material used.
This study showed that, PRF as a socket grafting material had no additive effect on the bone healing process after tooth extraction as manifested by Del Fabbro and suttapreysri. Bio-Oss® graft didn’t resorb after 3 months of socket augmentation as concluded by Buser and Becker.Within the limitation of the current study; it would be concluded that:
- PRF in the amount used had a minimal effect on the quantity and quality of newly formed bone, even after six months as compared to xenograft and control groups.
- When compared to PRF, xenograft remains the standard in enhancement of bone remodeling in post-extraction socket.
- There was a comparable effect of Bio-Oss® on bone healing versus leaving the five walled sockets un-augmented.
- Total quantity and quality of newly formed bone was more pronounced at six-month interval with decrease in the graft remnants.
- Total quality and quantity of newly formed bone is still controversial after three months. This imparts its effects on implant placement decision.
Recommendations:
To obtain more reliable results depending on the buccal bone thickness ≥1 mm:
1- Additional studies with larger patient sample size are necessary in order to identify the specific trends and risk parameters that should be evaluated before any alveolar ridge preservation procedure.
2- If implants are planned to be placed at three months following extraction, leaving the socket un-augmented is preferred from the histologic point of view.
3- If implants are planned to be placed at six months following extraction, augmentation the socket with xenograft is preferred from the histologic point of view.
4- Conduction of a split mouth study so that the position of the tooth and thickness of the buccal plate, are standardized for more reliable results.
5- To prove that PRF has an impact as a socket preserving material after tooth extraction the amount of the PRF used should be increased and the socket should be overfilled with it.6- Even though, leaving the five walled socket un-augmented, with adequate buccal wall thickness gives a good results regarding bone healing even after three months.