hi everybody, I too would like to see the research. But I would also like to see the clinical results and hear from peoples experience. Research is crucial but you cant discount what people are seeing in the clinical practice with improved results with using these items.

regarding the collecting tubes, I could not find plane tubes in the market, I found 9ml collecting tubes without anticoagulant but coated with z serum activator are they suitable for PRF preparation???

My experience with PRP PRGF PRF:
I started in 2000 using PRP and after 4 years I transformed my practice in PRGF as indicated by Anitua.
Two years ago I met in Nizza Dr. Choukroun and he teach me the PRF system.
When I was back in my office I started to use both, PRF and PRGF, but in my opinion PRF is more predictable because there are less variables.
In the PRGF preparation you have to pipe in the vaquette and like Anitua say you have to do “un pipetado muy meticuloso”.
The problem is that I use a force to pipe and my Assistant another one, the same thing in your office, so you have different results and sometime you don’t have the result because the calcium clorure you have to add in the vaquette is not in the same quantity and so on a lot of variables.
With PRF the product you receive after 12 minutes is always the same and is always ready.
One of the best advantages you see just in the first application of PRF is that after the positioning of the PRF membrane on the surgical site you have always “NO BLEEDING”
So you can suture with more visibility.
That’s it.
Dr. Giovanni Barbè, Codigoro (FE) Italy
 

Went to the intralock website but there was no update. When is the next PRF course as I would like to attend?

Thank you for your reply. PRGF was better for me then PRP, and at that time PRF was not mentioned in the US. However, from what I observed clinically in my patients and in other clinicians who used PRGF much longer then I did, their clinical results demonstrated thousands of implants under load over multiple years without failure. Including grafted sinuses with implants supporting restorations. I do not find it time consuming, once one trains his team properly. In addition, The clinician that developed this technique was and is using it in his own clinic on his own patients and getting excellent results. How many researchers can claim that? I found that significant.

Just looking to see what are people opinions between the three? What type of clinical results are you seeing?

PRF, CGF and PRGF all look interesting and have benefits. For me it may come done to costs.

What is the intial start up costs for each and residual price per case?

DR CHOUKROUN/TOFFLER,

Repeat question for either of you. What is the rpm of the centrifuge please????

why You place implant so buccul(may be picture is not clear, but it seems to me implant has to be placed more palatal)???
please explain.THANK YOU

Hi Dr Toffler,
How long between withdrawing the blood and starting the centrifuge??
Is it immediate?
What is the RPM of the centrifuge?
Thanks

Dr Cohen
I can appreciate your confusion and desire to sort through the maze of platelet concentrates. One has to wonder will they all follow the same path as PRP which was initially so "hot" and then seemeed to disappoint in controlled studies.
I have no experience with PRGF or CGF only with PRP and PRF which I have used daily for the last 15 months.
I was attracted to PRF because it involves no additives to prevent clotting and then in turn to stimulate clotting. Newer concentrates such as PRF and PRGF have intentionally eliminated the use of bovine thrombin for safety reasons. I was intrigued by the PRF concept incorporating natural clotting and matrix formation along with slow growth factor release. There is an ongoing disagreement on the relative value of inclusion (PRF) or exclusion(PRGF) of leukocytes in platelet concentrates.
I have clearly seen improved healing with reduced complications in my extraction, sinus and ridge augmentation procedures using PRF.
Hope this is helpful.
Best
Michael

A lot of attention on this forum regarding bioactive blood concentrates and Balloon Sinus Lift procedures amongst other novel and new techniques.

Ziv himself has stated in this forum;

"I know there is a big misunderstanding in all blood concentrates.
I will be discussing in details the controversies in between the blood concentrates during my two day course in Dentalxp in Atlanta on April 16-17th."

http://www.dentalxp.com/ContinuingEducationCourse.aspx?a=10

Whats the course schedule on these platelet concentrates?

Any new literature on advantages and disadvantages of each?

To people that are using them: Where are you seeing the best results? What procedures are you using them in? Can you get the same results without them?

I am eager to hear some answers.

Logan

Growth factors released by PRF are TGF Beta, PDGF, VEGF, Thrombospondin. We did'nt study other GF yet. Concentrations are published already in "Growth Factors journal".
In the exsudate, we have also the same GF, in less concentrations and adhesive proteins (fibronectin, vitronectin). It's better to hydrate the biomaterials with the exsudate than with saline solutiion and mix with small pieces of fibrin. to enhance the new vessels formation. Because the new vessels born into the fibrin under the action of leukocytes and VEGF... The main advantage of the PRF resides into the natural fibrin of the PRF,high concentration of leukocytes and slow release of growth factors (more than 1 week..)

I'll try to answer to the questions posted:
1. About bleeding control: the PRF release in the site Thrombospondin 1, reducing the bleeding.
2. Sinus healing: the understanding key of bone regeneration is the cell stimulation: Growh factors stimulate intensively the cells present in the sinus.(Progenitor cells ans periosteum cells). This is the reason of the good results published by Ziv Mazor and Alain Simonpieri
With long term release of growth factors by the PRF, the cells are stimulated as well: you 'll get obligatory better results in bone regeneration..and faster.
3. Using growth factors is indicated in all indications. Good results are published in soft tissue engineering. Because cells are available immediately. In bone regeneration, we need cells in the site to be efficient. It depends of the nature of the biomaterial used: the cell attraction is not the same with minerals or organics..May be it's the key of the better using of biomaterials added to PRF.