Comparison of prf and prf + (hydroxyapetite +beta tricalcium phosphate) in the treatment of infrabony defect using cbct: Clinicoradiographic study

Aim: Aim of the present study is to investigate the clinical and radiological (bone fill) effectiveness of autologous PRF along with the use of alloplastic bone graft material (HA+β TCP) in the treatment of intra bony defects. Material and methods: A randomized case controlled clinical trial of subjects with 10 intrabony defects which were assigned to group I consisting of intrabony defects treated with PRF alone and group II consisting of 10 intrabony defects on which treatment was done PRF+ bone graft (HA + β TCP) after the initial oral prophylaxis. Evaluation was done at baseline 3 months and 6 months using clinical parameter which included Plaque index (Silness and Loe), Gingival index (Loe and Silness), Probing depth and Relative attachment levels (distance between the most apical portion of the stent and the base of the pocket) and radiographical evaluation was done using a CBCT after 6 months to measure the amount of bone gain obtained. Results: The statistical result showed significant reduction in plaque and gingival index both in group 1 and 2 and the difference between the group was insignificant. Pocket depth showed statistically significant reduction both in group 1(3mm, 3.10mm at 3 and 6 months) and group 2(4.5mm, 5mm at 3 and 6 months) and group 2 showed significant reduction than group 1(1.5mm and 1.90mm at 3 and 6 months). RAL gain was statistically significant both in group 1(3.10mm and 3.90mm at 3 and 6 months) and group 2(3.70mm, 6.5mm at 3 and 6 months) and group 2 showed significant reduction than group 1(0.60mm, 2.6mm at 3 and 6 months). Statistically significant bone gain was seen in both the groups (1.2mm and 1.32mm at 6 months) but on comparison there was no significant difference between the group. Conclusion: Therefore, based on the result of this study it is clear that both PRF and combination of PRF+ bone graft (HA + β TCP) are effective in treating infrabony defect and able to improve the clinical and radiographic parameter. However, the improvement in the parameters were better in group 2 compared to group 1, which was due to the better gain in soft tissue in the group 2 than the defect fill.