Peer-review started: February 6, 2018
First decision: May 24, 2018
Revised: May 30, 2018
Accepted: June 14, 2018
Article in press: June 14, 2018
Published online: June 28, 2018
Processing time: 41 Days and 10.9 Hours
The aim of this mini-review was to investigate and compare the clinical efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), vs blood clot revascularization (BCR) for the regeneration of immature permanent teeth. The clinical efficacy of PRP, PRF, and BCR to regenerate 90 immature permanent teeth after one year, were compared for their ability to accomplish apical closure, a periapical lesion healing response, root lengthening, and dentinal wall thickening. The 90 cases were published in three different articles. The mean success rate for apical closure after one year was: PRP (89.2%) PRF (80%), and BCR (75.6%). The mean success rate for root lengthening after one year was: BCR (88.9%), PRP (68.2%), and PRF (65%). The periapical lesion healing response was 100% for BCR and 100% for PRP. Dentinal wall thickening was 100% for BCR, and 100% for PRP. All the PRP, PRF, and BCR treatments appeared to be effective. The published clinical results for PRP, PRF, and BCR indicate that these treatments are effective for the regeneration of immature permanent teeth.
Core tip: The fractured or decayed immature permanent teeth of children and young adults aged 6 years to 28 which have a restorable crown, but thin dentinal walls may be regenerated by using a revascularization procedure which draws blood and stem cells into a disinfected root canal space. This study has shown that in addition to the most common method of using a blood clot revascularization technique, a platelet-rich plasma and a platelet-rich fibrin technique may also be used as alternatives.