{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028732683427398667, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0061570035915854285, 'mean_word_length': 5.435643564356436, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft with or without platelet-rich fibrin in the treatment of mandibular Degree II furcation defects: A clinical and cone beam computed tomography study

Background: Currently, there is no gold-standard regenerative material for the treatment of furcation defects. The use of bone grafts in combination with guided tissue regeneration membrane is a predictable treatment option but is expensive. Platelet concentrates are increasingly being used owing to their ease of use and cost-effectiveness. Aims: The aim of this study is to evaluate the ability of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) to augment the regenerative effects exerted by demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft (DFDBA) in the treatment of mandibular degree II furcation defects. Materials and Methods: Twenty-eight defects in 14 patients with bilateral Degree II mandibular furcation defects were included in the study. The test group was treated with a combination of DFDBA and PRF, while in the control group DFDBA was used alone. Clinical parameters such as probing depth, relative vertical clinical attachment level, relative horizontal clinical attachment level (RHCAL), gingival margin level (GML), plaque index, and sulcus bleeding index were measured at baseline and 6 months. Radiographic parameters, such as vertical defect depth, horizontal defect depth and defect fill, were measured using cone beam computed tomography, taken at baseline and 6 months. Statistical Analysis Used: The intragroup and intergroup comparisons were done using the paired t-test. Results: The intergroup comparison of mean change in the parameters showed, statistically significant difference in RHCAL (<0.001) and GML (0.014), and no significant difference in other parameters. Conclusions: Within the limitations of the present study, PRF seems to favor soft-tissue healing but has no additional benefit in bone regeneration when used in combination with DFDBA.