Analysis of the achievement of primary and secondary goals and influencing factors in single-rooted immature permanent teeth after regenerative endodontic procedures: a retrospective study

Two-Dimensional Radiographs and Cone-beam Computed Tomography Assessment of Concentrated Growth Factor and Platelet-Rich Fibrin Scaffolds in Regenerative Endodontic Treatment of Immature Incisors with Periapical Radiolucency: A Randomized Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

The primary aim of this study was to compare the radiographic changes of immature incisors with periapical radiolucency after treatment with platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) and concentrated growth factor (CGF) platelet concentrate scaffolds as well as assessment of the clinical success rate over 12 months. The secondary aim was to monitor the radiographic changes in terms of reduction of periapical lesion diameter (PALD), root dentine thickness (RDT), root length (RL), and apical foramen width (AFW). The tertiary aim was to assess and pulp responses, after 12 months.

METHODS

Fifty six children with seventy necrotic, single-rooted maxillary incisors with periapical radiolucency were treated with either CGF or PRF scaffolds (35 teeth per group). Two patients with 4 teeth (2 teeth in each group) failed to attain the follow-up recalls. Radiographic changes in terms of reduction of PALD, RDT, RL, and AFW were monitored using a 2-dimensional (2D) radiograph and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan. The clinical performance of teeth receiving both scaffolds was assessed after 6 and 12 months. Categorical and continuous data were analyzed using the chi-square test and the t test, respectively. The time and group effects on the means of different radiographic dimensions were tested using the general linear model. Bland-Altman plots were used to assess the level of agreement between the 2D radiographs and CBCT. The level of significance was defined at 0.05 and a 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

The means of PALD and RL showed significant enhancement in the CGF group compared to the PRF group (P < .05). While the difference between the 2 scaffolds in terms of RDT and AFW was not significant (P > .05). The findings of the 2D radiograph and CBCT were consistent. Clinically, both scaffold success rates were similar (93.9%) over the follow-up intervals. The influence of study independent variables had no significant effect on the success of the regenerative endodontic procedures outcome (P > .05). There was no significant difference in the positive pulp responses to the thermal and electric pulp tests after one year of treatment (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

According to the short-term follow-up, PRF and CGF were successful in treating immature teeth with periapical radiolucency by regenerative endodontics. Both scaffold systems induced periapical healing and root lengthening with significant superiority of CGF.