Comparison of Antimicrobial Activity against Porphyromonas gingivalis between Advanced Platelet-Rich Fibrin and Injectable Platelet-Rich Fibrin

Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) and Injectable Platelet-Rich Fibrin (i-PRF) in the Non-Surgical Treatment of Periodontitis-A Systematic Review

The gold standard in the non-surgical treatment of periodontitis is scaling and root planing (SRP). In recent years, the use of autogenous platelet concentrates has spread over many specialties in dentistry and, thus, has also been gaining popularity in periodontal treatment. Its two main fractions are platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), which, since 2014, can also be used via injection as injectable platelet-rich fibrin (i-PRF). The authors conducted a comprehensive systematic review in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. It involved searching PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases using the phrases ("Root Planing" OR "Subgingival Curettage" OR "Periodontal Debridement") AND ("Platelet-Rich Plasma"). Based on the authors' inclusion and exclusion criteria, 12 results were included in the review, out of 1170 total results. The objective of this review was to ascertain the impact of utilizing PRP and i-PRF in SRP. The results revealed that both the incorporation of PRP and i-PRF were found to be significantly associated with are duction in gingival pocket depth and again in clinical attachment level; however, i-PRF demonstrated superiority in improving clinical parameters. Furthermore, i-PRF demonstrated notable bactericidal efficacy against Porphyromonas gingivalis. On the other hand, PRP proved inferior to an Nd:YAG laser in clinical parameter improvement; however, it demonstrated significant efficiency as well. This literature review led the authors to the conclusion that autologous platelet concentrates might be competent agents for improving the therapeutic outcomes of SRP.

Injectable Platelet-Rich Fibrin and Advanced Platelet-Rich Fibrin Demonstrate Enhanced Anti-Biofilm Effect Compared to Enamel Matrix Derivatives on Decontaminated Titanium Surfaces

BACKGROUND

The search for effective antimicrobial agents to mitigate peri-implant infections remains a crucial aspect of implant dentistry. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the antimicrobial efficacy of i-PRF, A-PRF+, and enamel matrix derivative (EMD) on decontaminated rough and smooth titanium (Ti) discs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Rough and smooth Ti discs were coated with multispecies biofilm and thoroughly debrided using a chitosan-bristled brush. Subsequently, i-PRF, A-PRF+, and EMD were applied. Untreated discs served as control. Residual adherent bacteria present on the treated Ti discs were visualized by SEM and quantified using culture technique, and colony-forming units (CFUs) were measured after 48 h and 7 days.

RESULTS

i-PRF demonstrated better antimicrobial effectiveness on both smooth and rough implant surfaces as compared to A-PRF+ and EMD (p < 0.001). In all the experimental groups, smooth Ti discs displayed a greater reduction in microbes compared to rough Ti discs when treated with the biologics. The major reduction in CFU values was determined after seven days.

CONCLUSIONS

i-PRF as a regenerative material may also be suitable for decontaminating implant surfaces, which could influence tissue healing and regenerative outcomes positively.

Antimicrobial effects of clindamycin-loaded platelet-rich fibrin (PRF)

OBJECTIVES

Recent research has demonstrated that platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) is an appropriate carrier for ampicillin/sulbactam. The aim of the study was to investigate whether PRF is also a suitable bio-carrier for clindamycin (CLI).

METHODS

PRF membranes were produced from 36 patients receiving intravenous therapy with CLI (e.g. due to the diagnosis of an osteonecrosis of the jaw or infections). Concentrations of CLI in PRF membranes were measured with liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, and the antimicrobial effects were investigated in vitro in agar diffusion tests with fresh PRF and PRF stored for 24 h. Storage was performed in an incubator at 36 °C to simulate the in-vivo situation.

RESULTS

The mean concentration of CLI in plasma was 1.0 ± 0.3 μg/100 mg plasma; in resulting PRF membranes 0.7 ± 0.4 μg/100 mg PRF. Agar diffusion tests were performed with Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Streptococcus mitis, Porphyromonas gingivalis, and Fusobacterium nucleatum. Mean inhibition zones, in mm, for fresh PRF were 17.3, 12.2, 18.8, 17.1, 25.8 and 18.1, 12.7, 19.2, 17.3, and 26.3 for stored PRF, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The results demonstrate that PRF is a suitable bio-carrier for CLI when administered systemically to patients. The concentration in PRF generated from patients after infusion of 600 mg CLI dose suffices to target clinically relevant bacteria.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Using PRF as a carrier for local antibiotic application can prevent infections in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Within the study limitations, the findings could expand the scope of PRF application by adding CLI as a new antibiotic to the spectrum of PRF therapy.