Comparative Evaluation of Repeated Submucosal Administration of Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) and Platelet-Rich Fibrin (PRF) on Canine Retraction - A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Study

Abstract

Introduction: Orthodontic tooth movement results from a biological response to external forces, disrupting the dentofacial complex's balance. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) have shown potential in accelerating tooth movement, and this study compared their effectiveness in canine retraction through repeated submucosal administration.

Aim: To evaluate and compare the effects of repeated submucosally administered platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) on canine retraction.

Study Design: A sample comprising 20 adult patients with well-aligned arches, indicating 1^st premolar extraction was selected. The study randomly assigned PRP and PRF treatments into two groups for canine retraction. In Group 1, PRP was used, while Group 2 employed PRF. The maxillary arch was divided into right and left sides for equal distribution, using Microsoft Excel for random allocation. After leveling and alignment with a stainless-steel wire, bilateral first premolar extractions were performed. Mini screws were inserted between the second premolars and first molars for anchorage, and NiTi closed-coil springs were used to apply retraction force. 20 ml of blood was drawn for PRP and PRF preparation. PRP and PRF were administered submucosally around the canines at 15-day intervals until space closure. Analysis of canine retraction was done through study models taken at pre-extraction and each subsequent appointment till complete space closure using IC Measure software.

Results: Paired t-test was used to analyze the obtained data. Linear movement of space closure with the intervention of PRF revealed a mean value of 9.88±0.65mm and PRP revealed an overall average linear measurement of 9.61±0.66 mm. The mean difference between linear measurements of PRF and PRP at time difference T0-T9 was significant at a value of 0.27±0.03 mm (p value-0.004) with greater linear movement shown by PRF. There was an insignificant difference (p-value =0.981) between the mean difference in interval T0-T9 in angular measurements of PRF and PRP.

Conclusion: Canine retraction by PRF was 1.02 times faster than PRP. The findings of this study showed that the linear measurement of PRF was greater than that of PRP by 0.27±0.03mm. PRF showed increased variation in rotation of canine than PRP. Further research can be carried out on the comparative analysis of variants of PRF and PRP, such as L-PRF, A-PRF, etc. in determining their efficacy in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement.

KEYWORDS