Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Feb 1;9(2):391.
doi: 10.3390/jcm9020391.

Long-Term Influence of Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) on Dental Implants after Maxillary Augmentation: Implant Survival and Success Rates

Sameh Attia  1 , Clara Narberhaus  1 , Heidrun Schaaf  1 , Philipp Streckbein  1 , Jörn Pons-Kühnemann  2 , Christian Schmitt  3 , Friedrich Wilhelm Neukam  3 , Hans-Peter Howaldt  1 , Sebastian Böttger  1
Affiliations

Long-Term Influence of Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) on Dental Implants after Maxillary Augmentation: Implant Survival and Success Rates

Sameh Attia et al. J Clin Med. .

Abstract

The atrophic maxilla often requires bone augmentation before implant placement to ensure long-term implant success. A previous prospective clinical trial examined the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) during maxillary augmentation. The short-term results showed no positive effect of PRP. The aim of this study was to evaluate the same patient collective of the previous study regarding the PRP long-term impact on the survival and success of dental implants. Fifty-three patients from the previous study diagnosed with maxillary atrophy and augmented with autologous bone grafts from the iliac crest and dental implants, were included in this study. Treatment was carried out on both sides in 34 patients with a split-mouth-design in which one randomly chosen side was treated additionally with PRP, the other side was the control-side. Nineteen patients were treated only on one side and were assigned to the PRP-or the control group randomly. Implant follow-up of the patients from the previous study was performed after an average time of 13 years. Implant success was evaluated using two different success criteria. Thitry-seven patients (25 women and 12 men) were investigated in this study. Seventeen patients (12 female, 5 male) were included in the PRP group, while 20 patients (13 female, 7 male) participated in the control group. A total of 210 implants were inserted. Of these, 102 implants (48.57%) were placed in the PRP group and 108 implants (51.42%) in the control group. Out of 102 investigated implants in the PRP group, 6 were removed (survival rate 94.1%). While two of the 108 implants in the control group were loss (survival rate 98.1%). In the PRP group, the cumulative probability of survival after 15.1 years was 94.1% and in the control group, was 98.1%, with no significant difference between the two groups. Higher significant difference for the control group was found in the cumulative success probability using Albrektson criteria (p = 0.05). Positive impact of PRP on long-term implant survival and success could not be found.

Keywords: PRP; implant success; implant survival; long-term result; platelet-rich plasma; sinus lift.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Clinical case included in the study. (A,B) intra-operative images show extrem maxillary atrophy before and after autologus bone transplantation from the iliac crest and bilaterial sinus lift, on one side platelet-rich plasma (PRP) was used, (C) intra-operative image, six months post implant placement (n = 8), (D–F) intra-oral image and panoramic radiograph after prosthetic rehabilitation, (G–J) intra-oral images and panoramic X-ray at long-term follow-up examination at 13 years post-surgery.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Kaplan–Meier survival probabilities of 210 investigated implants, 102 PRP, and 108 control group.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Kaplan–Meier success probabilities of 210 implants according to Buser implant success criteria.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Kaplan–Meier success probabilities of 210 implants according to Albrektsson implant success criteria.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Survival rate of 171 implants in PRP and control side (split-mouth).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Kaplan–Meier success probabilities of 171 implants regarding the Buser implant success criteria in the split-mouth evaluation.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Kaplan–Meier success probabilities of 171 implants regarding the Albrektsson implant success criteria in the split-mouth evaluation.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Helmi M.F., Huang H., Goodson J.M., Hasturk H., Tavares M., Natto Z.S. Prevalence of periodontitis and alveolar bone loss in a patient population at Harvard School of Dental Medicine. BMC Oral Health. 2019;19:254. doi: 10.1186/s12903-019-0925-z. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Marx R.E., Carlson E.R., Eichstaedt R.M., Schimmele S.R., Strauss J.E., Georgeff K.R. Platelet-rich plasma: Growth factor enhancement for bone grafts. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 1998;85:638–646. doi: 10.1016/S1079-2104(98)90029-4. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Paduano F., Marrelli M., Alom N., Amer M., White L.J., Shakesheff K.M., Tatullo M. Decellularized bone extracellular matrix and human dental pulp stem cells as a construct for bone regeneration. J. Biomater. Sci. Polym. Ed. 2017;28:730–748. doi: 10.1080/09205063.2017.1301770. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Barry M., Pearce H., Cross L., Tatullo M., Gaharwar A.K. Advances in Nanotechnology for the Treatment of Osteoporosis. Curr. Osteoporos. Rep. 2016;14:87–94. doi: 10.1007/s11914-016-0306-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kerativitayanan P., Tatullo M., Khariton M., Joshi P., Perniconi B., Gaharwar A.K. Nanoengineered osteoinductive and elastomeric scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 2017;3:590–600. doi: 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.7b00029. - DOI - PubMed