الفهرس 
• Review of LiteratureOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 155 |  |  |
| | | from | 155 | | |
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to compare between using PRGF and PRF in socket augmentation and their effect as a graft material and to find the role of the growth factor in bone regeneration and its effect on differentiation and maturation.
Thirty subjects were included in this study. They were divided into three groups: group 1 included ten patients, their sockets augemented by PRGF after extraction, group 2 included ten patients their sockets augemented by PRF after extraction while group 3 included ten controls not received any augementation after extraction.
Clinical parameters including; vertical bone height and bone width were recorded at baseline and at 8 weeks after extraction. Moreover, histomorphometric parameters including; total surface area, trabecular bone size and area fraction of newly formed bone were measured at 8 weeks after extraction by histomorphometric analysis.
In the present study a core biopsy was taken after 8 weeks from tooth extraction which has undergone histomorphometric analysis, implant placement was also done at the same time.
In the present study we found that mean change in clinical measurements of vertical bone height at the time of extraction and after 2 months was the least in PRGF group then PRF group and the biggest difference was in control group with non-significant difference between three groups.
In comparison, this study shows that the mean change in clinical measurements of bone width immediate after extraction and after 2 months was the least in PRGF group then PRF group and the biggest in the control group with significant difference between three groups.
In the present study histomorphometric analysis revealed a higher mean surface area of newly formed bone in PRGF group compared to that of PRF group with a non-significant statistical difference between two groups, while the mean area in both groups showed a significant difference when compared to that of control group.
The results also showed that trabecular size in PRF group was larger than that in PRGF group with a significant difference between the two groups and also between that of PRF compared to that of control group. However, the mean trabecular size of PRGF group showed insignificant difference with that of control group.
On the other hand, the mean area fraction of newly formed bone showed the same results in both PRF and PRGF groups with insignificant difference between both groups. Both groups showed significant difference with that of control group.
Also, In the present study, histological analysis revealed more osteoblastic rimming around newly formed bone trabeculae, larger lacunae for osteocytes and also the blood vessels were more and larger-sized in PRF and PRGF groups compared to control group.