Background: Currently, the use of platelet-rich plasma in bone regeneration is a real option, although more than one opinion has alerted us to the absence of clinical benefits.
Purpose: Analysis of the factors able to modify the characteristics of the platelet preparation obtained by Curasan, Plasma Rich in Growth Factors (PRGF), Platelet Concentrate Collection System (PCCS) and SmartPrep systems, relating them to the type of clinical application and the final bone regeneration achieved.
Materials and methods: A search was conducted in PubMed using the keywords "platelet-rich plasma," "PRP," "platelet rich growth factors," and "oral bone regeneration." Four widely accepted protocols for the obtention of PRP (above) were analyzed. Any clinical studies with controls, using the four preparation protocols and with a 4 to 6 weeks follow-up period were compared. The protocols were also grouped according to the type of PRP application: PRP-alone, with bone, or with bone substitutes.
Results: Bone regeneration was not achieved in any of the cases using PRP obtained by Curasan and PCCS systems, whereas PRP obtained by SmartPrep achieved it only in one in three published cases and PRGF in one in six.
Conclusion: Based on the poor results observed in current literature, the use of PRP in oral surgery cannot be recommended.
Keywords: PRP; oral bone regeneration; platelet-rich growth factors; platelet-rich plasma.
© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.