RESUMEN
Background/Purpose: The present study aimed to investigate plastic tubes without additives as alternatives to glass and silica-coated plastic tubes, in the production of PRF membranes. Materials and Methods: Nine blood samples were collected from eight volunteers (n = 8) separated into three groups, according to tube material: glass, silica-coated plastic, and plastic without additives. In each group, the samples were centrifuged using different relative centrifugation forces: L-PRF (700 g/12 min), A-PRF (200 g/14 min), and A-PRF + (200 g/8 min). The generated membranes were evaluated by histomorphometry, considering the fibrin network, platelet aggregates, and cellular morphology, by light microscopy. The ultrastructural cellular morphology integrity was evaluated by transmission electron microscopy. Results: The L-PRF (p < 0.019) and A-PRF (p < 0.001) membranes showed a significantly lower fibrin network density in plastic tubes without additives compared to glass and silica-coated plastic tubes. Plastic tubes without additives revealed a significantly higher platelet percentage, regardless of the protocol (p < 0.005). In all groups, TEM analysis showed preserved normal morphological ultrastructure, maintaining the integrity of cellular components. Conclusion: Plastic tubes without additives offer a viable alternative for producing PRF membranes. They exhibited a higher platelet density and demonstrated fibrin network and cellular morphology similar to those of glass and silica-coated plastic tubes, irrespective of the centrifugation protocol.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) has been used in several fields of dentistry to improve tissue healing. However, PRF from glass tubes results in a limited number of small membranes, increasing clinical difficulty and work time. The aim of this study was to evaluate cell and platelet amounts and biomechanical strength of PRF-giant membranes produced from plastic tubes without additives. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The investigators designed an ex vivo study, to compare 3 different centrifugation protocols for obtaining PRF: 700 × g/12 minutes (leukocyte and PRF [L-PRF]), 350 × g/14 minutes (GM350), and 60-700 × g more than 15 minutes total (progressive PRF [PRO-PRF]). We collected blood samples from 5 volunteers aged 25-54 years, over 3 different time periods (triplicate and paired study). From each venipuncture, 4 mL of blood was collected in vacutainers with ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA) and approximately 104 mL in 12 plastic tubes without additives, which were separated into 3 groups, as per the centrifugation protocols (n = 5): L-PRF, GM350, and PRO-PRF. The PRF from the tubes of the same protocol was aspirated and 9 mL were placed in polylactic acid (PLA) forms and 3 mL were placed in a glass receptacle. The membranes from PLA forms were tested for tensile strength and the membranes from glass receptacles were evaluated by histomorphometry, while platelets and leukocytes were counted for those in tubes with EDTA. Statistical analyses were performed using Shapiro-Wilk normality test and then a one-way repeated measures analysis followed by Tukey multiple comparisons test (α < 0.05). RESULTS: In tensile analyses, PRO-PRF (0.85 ± 0.23 N) showed a significantly higher maximum breaking strength than L-PRF (0.61 ± 0.26 N, P = .01) and GM350 (0.58 ± 0.23 N, P < .01). The histomorphometry revealed no significant statistical difference in cell counts between the groups (P = .52). Furthermore, there was no significant difference between the leukocyte (P = .25) and platelet counts (P = .59) in whole blood between the groups. CONCLUSION: The progressive protocol (PRO-PRF) enabled the production of PRF giant membranes with greater tensile strength and adequate cell distribution. Moreover, it allows biomaterial incorporation during production and enables clinical control of membrane thickness and size as per the surgical procedure.