(1). Augmented (C: , T: ) and residual bone height (C: , T: ) (2). The percentage of newly formed bone (C: , T: ) (3). The percentage of soft tissue component (C: , T: )
Bone volume, density, and height values were significantly higher in the allografts alone group than T-PRF alone group
(1). The ISQ in T-PRF group () at 4 months and control group () at 6 months. (2). The rate of newly formed bone in T-PRF group () at 4 months and control group () at 6 months. (3). The cancellous bone ratio in T-PRF group () at 4 months and control group () at 6 months.
Osteoprogenitor cells () were lower and inflammatory cells () were higher in the PRF group
The new bone formation; mean percentages of residual graft; the mean percentages of soft tissue; mean densities of osteoblasts, osteoclasts, osteocytes, and capillary vessels; and the composition and distribution of histologic structures
There were no obvious signs of resorption by the postoperative radiographic evaluation in both groups
(1). The percentage of newly formed bone (%) at 6th month. Bio-Oss + PRF group: , Bio-Oss group: (2). The percentage of residual bone substitute (Bio-Oss) (%) at 6th month, Bio-Oss + PRF group: , Bio-Oss group: (3). Contact between newly formed bone and bone substitute (%). Bio-Oss + PRF group: , Bio-Oss group:
(1). A significantly greater percentage of vital tissue (bone and connective tissue) in TG (2). Higher proportion of the regenerate after grafting with FDBA and PRP (3). The ratio of vital bone to residual graft particles in TG was higher than CG
(1). A significant increase in mean bone density for TG immediately, at 3 months and 6months (2). Significant highest mean bone density for TG at 6 months postimplantation
The mean bone density of grafting in CG at 3 months The difference of mean bone density for grafting at 3 months between both groups
(1). Histological evaluation demonstrated increased percentage of newly formed bone (%) for the TG () compared to the CG (). (2). Residual graft (%) was significantly higher in the CG () than in TG () (3). The ISQ immediately after implant placement was significantly higher in the control group () compared to the test group ().
(1). There was not differences in graft volume between test and control group by cone-beam computed tomography analysis (2). The ISQ values at loading did not differ between the groups
Histological evaluation with 7 patients demonstrated increased percentage of newly formed bone (%) for the TG () compared to the CG () at 3 months
There were no differences in percentage of newly formed bone with 9 patients between test and control group by histological evaluation of biopsies with microimplants retrieved 6 months after bone grafting (TG vs. CG: vs. )
(1).The average density on the microradiographs at the first molar region was at the PRP side , and at the non-PRP side (2). The newly bone formation by the histomorphometric analysis revealed no differences between both groups (TG vs. CG: vs. )
(1). Both of groups showed an almost uniform radiographic aspect (2). Densitometric values were higher at PRP group (at 4 months TG vs. CG: vs. ; at 5 months TG vs. CG: vs. ; at 6 months TG vs. CG: vs. ; at 7 months TG vs. CG: vs. ) (3). Histology documents enhanced bone activities by trabecular bone volume (TBV) evaluations in sites treated with PRP group at 4 and 5 months (at 4 months TG vs. CG: vs. ; at 5 months TG vs. CG: vs. )
(1). Clinical performance across both groups showed no statistical significance (2). The TVB values of PRP group and autologous bone alone group at 6 and 7 months
CG: control group; TG: test group; L-PRF: leukocyte-and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF); DBBM: deproteinized bovine bone mineral; NR: not report; T-PRF: titanium-prepared platelet rich fibrin; β-TCP: beta-tricalcium phosphate; P-PRP: pure platelet-rich plasma; ISQ: implant stability quotient; TBV: trabecular bone volume.
