PRF, A-PRF, CGF, PRP 비교 논문(국내,국외)

근거 없는 원심분리기를 PRF용으로 사용하면 안되는 이유에 관한 논문들입니다.

Implant Dent. 2016 Jun;25(3):387-93. doi: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000423.

Early Bone Formation at a Femur Defect Using CGF and PRF Grafts in Adult Dogs: A Comparative Study.

Park HC¹, Kim SG, Oh JS, You JS, Kim JS, Lim SC, Jeong MA, Kim JS, Jung C, Kwon YS, Ji H.

Author information

• ¹*Resident, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Chosun University, Gwangju, Republic of Korea. †Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Chosun University, Gwangju, Republic of Korea. ‡Associate Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Chosun University, Gwangju, Republic of Korea. §Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Chosun University, Gwangju, Republic of Korea. ¶Assistant Professor, Department of Pre-Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Chosun University, Gwangju, Republic of Korea. ‖Professor, Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, Chosun University, Gwangju, Republic of Korea. #Professor, Department of Dental Hygiene, Kangwon National University, Samcheok, Republic of Korea. ††Clinical doctor, Misomore Dental Clinic, Jeonju, Republic of Korea.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this study was to compare the predictability of new bone formation using an autologous concentrated growth factor (CGF) graft alone and platelet graft alone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Four bony defects of 8 mm were formed, and 3.7- × 10-mm implants were placed in the right femur. The platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), CGF, and synthetic bone were grafted to the bone defect area. Enzyme linked immunosorbent assay quantitative analysis and microscopic analysis of the fibrinogen structure were performed.

RESULTS:

At 4 weeks, the comparisons of each experimental group showed a significant difference between the CGF group and the synthetic bone graft group. When comparing the CGF and allograft material groups, the allograft group showed significantly more new bone formation. In the case of vascular endothelial growth factor, CGF had 1.5 times more than PRF. CGF showed a fibrinogen structure with a constant diameter.

CONCLUSION:

When applied to a clinical case, CGF is predicted to show better results than PRF.

실험 결과를 근거로, 기존 PRF보다 CGF가 보다 좋은 결과를 보여줄 것이다.

->프랑스의 PRF개발자는 CGF를 그냥 단순한 PRF의 카피일 뿐이라고 말하고 있습니다.

->CGF는 이태리 실프라덴트사 제품의 전용장비를 사용합니다. 개발자의 오리지날 PRF원심분리기는 국내에 소개 되지 않았으므로 위 논문에서 말하는 PRF는 국산원심분리기를에 오리지날 PRF프로토콜을 적용해 PRF를 추출한 듯합니다.

 

Arch Oral Biol. 2014 May;59(5):550-8. doi: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2014.02.004. Epub 2014 Feb 15.

Comparison of platelet-rich plasma (PRP), platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), and concentrated growth factor (CGF) in rabbit-skull defect healing.

Kim TH¹, Kim SH¹, Sándor GK², Kim YD³.

Author information

• ¹Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Dental Research Institute, and Institute for Translational Dental Sciences, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Yangsan, South Korea.
• ²Regea, BioMediTech, Institute of Biomedical Technology, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Oulu University Hospital, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
• ³Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Dental Research Institute, and Institute for Translational Dental Sciences, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Yangsan, South Korea. Electronic address: ydkimdds@pusan.ac.kr.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of platelet-rich plasma (PRP), platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), and concentrated growth factor (CGF) on bone healing.

STUDY DESIGN:

Twelve rabbits were included in this randomized, blinded, prospective study. 15-mm×10-mm-sized defects were created in the parietal bone, filled with PRP, PRF, CGF, and void. The bone mineral density and bone volume were analyzed with microscopic computed tomography (micro-CT) and histomorphometrics at the 6th and 12th week.

RESULTS:

In micro-CT analysis, bone mineral density and bone volume were greater in the experimental group than in controls at both 6th and 12th week, but not among the experimental groups. Similarly, histomorphometric examination revealed that more bone formation was seen in the experimental group.

CONCLUSION:

The addition of PRP, PRF, and CGF had significantly increased bone formation at the 6th week. The effect of PRP, PRF, and CGF was similar and may be useful in the future to increase the success rate of bone grafting.

PRP, PRF, CGF 모두 6주 후 눈에 띄게 골형성이 증가하였다. PRP,PRF,CGF는 서로 유사하며 골이식의 성공률을 증진시키는데 유용할 것이다.

Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Clin Oral Investig. 2016 Jan 25. [Epub ahead of print]

Comparative release of growth factors from PRP, PRF, and advanced-PRF.

Kobayashi E^1,2, Flückiger L³, Fujioka-Kobayashi M^1,4, Sawada K^1,2, Sculean A³, Schaller B¹, Miron RJ^5,6.

Author information

• ¹Department of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Bern University, Bern, Switzerland.
• ²Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Life Dentistry at Niigata, The Nippon Dental University, Niigata, Japan.
• ³Department of Periodontology, Bern University, Bern, Switzerland.
• ⁴Department of Oral Surgery, Clinical Dentistry, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Tokushima University Graduate School, Tokushima, Japan.
• ⁵Department of Periodontology, Bern University, Bern, Switzerland. richard.miron@zmk.unibe.ch.
• ⁶Department of Oral Surgery and Stomatology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. richard.miron@zmk.unibe.ch.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

The use of platelet concentrates has gained increasing awareness in recent years for regenerative procedures in modern dentistry. The aim of the present study was to compare growth factor release over time from platelet-rich plasma (PRP), platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), and a modernized protocol for PRF, advanced-PRF (A-PRF).

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Eighteen blood samples were collected from six donors (3 samples each for PRP, PRF, and A-PRF). Following preparation, samples were incubated in a plate shaker and assessed for growth factor release at 15 min, 60 min, 8 h, 1 day, 3 days, and 10 days. Thereafter, growth factor release of PDGF-AA, PDGF-AB, PDGF-BB, TGFB1, VEGF, EGF, and IGF was quantified using ELISA.

RESULTS:

The highest reported growth factor released from platelet concentrates was PDGF-AA followed by PDGF-BB, TGFB1, VEGF, and PDGF-AB. In general, following 15-60 min incubation, PRP released significantly higher growth factors when compared to PRF and A-PRF. At later time points up to 10 days, it was routinely found that A-PRF released the highest total growth factors. Furthermore, A-PRF released significantly higher total protein accumulated over a 10-day period when compared to PRP or PRF.

CONCLUSION:

The results from the present study indicate that the various platelet concentrates have quite different release kinetics. The advantage of PRP is the release of significantly higher proteins at earlier time points whereas PRF displayed a continual and steady release of growth factors over a 10-day period. Furthermore, in general, it was observed that the new formulation of PRF (A-PRF) released significantly higher total quantities of growth factors when compared to traditional PRF.

혈소판 추출기법에 따라 상당히 다른 성장인자 방출역학을 보여준다. 기존 PRF보다 A-PRF에서 눈에 뜨게 많은 성장인자의 방출과 형성을 관찰할 수 있었다.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE:

Based on these findings, PRP can be recommended for fast delivery of growth factors whereas A-PRF is better-suited for long-term release.

 PRP는 성장인자를 빨리 방출시키는데 추천되며 A-PRF는 천천히 성장인자를 방출시키는데 적합하다.

-> 오리지날 PRF와 PRP, Upgrade PRF(A-PRF)를 비교한 논문입니다.