Comparative Evaluation of Bioactive Glass Putty and Platelet Rich Fibrin in the Treatment of Human Periodontal Intrabony Defects: A Randomized Control Trial.

Autor:	Naqvi A; Lecturer, Department of Dentistry, HIMSR and HAHC Hospital, Hamdard University, New Delhi, India., Gopalakrishnan D; Professor and Head, Department of Dentistry, Dr. D.Y. Patil Dental College and Hospital, Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pune, Maharashtra, India., Bhasin MT; Associate Professor, Department of Periodontics and Oral Implantology, Santosh Dental College, Santosh University, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India., Sharma N; Associate Professor, Department of Dentistry, HIMSR and HAHC Hospital, Hamdard University, New Delhi, India., Haider K; Demonstrator, Department of Dentistry, Jhansi Medical College, Uttar Pradesh, India., Martande S; Assistant Professor, Department of Dentistry, D.Y. Patil University, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR [J Clin Diagn Res] 2017 Jul; Vol. 11 (7), pp. ZC09-ZC13. Date of Electronic Publication: 2017 Jul 01.
DOI:	10.7860/JCDR/2017/23831.10149
Abstrakt:	Introduction: Platelet-Rich Fibrin (PRF) and bioactive glass putty have been shown to be effective in promoting reduction in probing depth, gain in clinical attachment, and defect fill in intrabony periodontal defects. The individual role played by bioactive glass putty in combination with PRF is yet to be elucidated. Aim: To compare the clinical effectiveness of the combination of PRF and bioactive glass putty and bioactive glass putty alone as regenerative techniques for intrabony defects in humans. Materials and Methods: Ten pairs of intrabony defects were surgically treated with PRF and bioactive glass putty (Test group) on one side or bioactive glass putty alone (Control group) on other side. The primary outcomes of the study included changes in probing depth; attachment level and bone fill of osseous defect. The clinical parameters were recorded at baseline, 3, 6, and 9 months. Radiographic assessment was done using standardized intraoral periapical radiographs. Differences between baseline and postoperative measurementsbetween the control and test groups were calculated using independent t-test. Comparisons were made within each group between baseline, 3 months, 6 months and 9 months using the ANOVA test followed by Bonferroni test. Results: The mean probing depth reduction was greater in the test group (bioactive glass putty and PRF) i.e., (3.2±2.3 mm) than in the control group (bioactive glass putty alone) i.e., (3.15±1.06 mm). The mean CAL gain was also greater in the test group (4.1±1.73 mm) as compared to the control group (3.15±1.06 mm), (p-value<0.95). Furthermore significantly greater mean bone fill was found in the test group (7.1±1.37 mm) as compared to the control group (5.7 ± 1.64 mm), (p-value<0.043). Conclusion: The results of this study showed both the groups bioactive glass putty alone (Control Group) and the combination of PRF and bioactive glass putty (Test Group) are effective in the treatment of intrabony defects. The bioactive glass putty appears to be a suitable vehicle to administer biologic substances like PRF and growth factors to induce the new bone regeneration.
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu