Comparison of Activated PRF and Standard PRF in Terms of Evaluation of Quality Bone Regeneration in Extraction Sockets of Impacted Third Molar: A Split-Mouth Double-Blind Control Trial

This study aimed to comprehensively compare the efficacy of activated PRF (A-PRF) and standard PRF (S-PRF) in bilateral mandibular third molar surgeries, focusing on soft and hard tissue healing.

A clinical, prospective, split-mouth design was employed involving 16 patients with bilateral impacted mandibular third molars. The study, conducted from January 2020 to September 2021, adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki and received institutional ethics approval. Soft tissue regeneration and bone healing were assessed in 32 extraction sites, with A-PRF and S-PRF allocated to distinct groups. Evaluation included a healing index (HI) for soft tissue on days 1, 7, and 21, and CBCT for bone density at immediate postoperative and three-month follow-up.

Statistical analyses revealed a significant advantage for A-PRF in soft tissue healing on days 7 and 21 (p = 0.01, z = 2.39; p = 0.00032, z = 3.59, respectively). CBCT assessments demonstrated a notable increase in bone density in the A-PRF group compared to S-PRF at both time points (p = 0.00001). Growth factor analysis further supported the superior performance of A-PRF.

This study establishes that A-PRF exhibits enhanced soft and hard tissue healing compared to S-PRF in bilateral mandibular third molar surgeries. The findings underscore the potential clinical utility of A-PRF, offering improved outcomes and patient comfort. Further investigations may explore underlying mechanisms and long-term implications for a more comprehensive understanding of its role in oral surgery.