COMPARISON OF PRF AND I-PRF IN WOUND HEALING FOLLOWING SURGICAL EXTRACTIONS OF MANDIBULAR THIRD MOLARS

Background: Surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars is frequently associated with postoperative complications, including pain, delayed soft-tissue healing, periodontal pocket formation, and swelling. Autologous platelet concentrates, particularly platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) and injectable platelet-rich fibrin (I-PRF), have gained increasing attention due to their potential regenerative properties and ability to enhance tissue repair and postoperative healing. Aim: To compare the effectiveness of PRF and I-PRF in enhancing wound healing following surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars. Materials & Methods: A randomized, double-blind, split-mouth clinical study was conducted among 21 patients requiring bilateral surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars, resulting in a total of 42 extraction sockets. Each patient received both interventions: one extraction site was treated with PRF, while the contralateral site was treated with I-PRF according to a computer-generated randomization sequence. Postoperative pain, softtissue healing, swelling, periodontal pocket formation, and maximum interincisal mouth opening were assessed at predetermined follow-up intervals. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 26. Intergroup comparisons were performed using the paired t-test and Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test, according to the distribution of the data. Results: The I-PRF-treated sites demonstrated significantly improved early postoperative healing outcomes compared with PRF-treated sites. Postoperative pain scores were significantly lower in the I-PRF group on postoperative day 1 (p = 0.001) and day 3 (p = 0.002), whereas no significant difference was observed on day 7 (p = 0.72). Soft-tissue healing scores were significantly higher in the I-PRF group on day 3 (p = 0.003) and day 7 (p = 0.001). Postoperative swelling was significantly reduced in the I-PRF group compared with PRF-treated sites on days 3, 7, and 14 (p < 0.05). Periodontal pocket depth was significantly lower in the I-PRF group on day 7 (p = 0.001) and day 14 (p = 0.002). No significant differences were observed between groups regarding maximum interincisal mouth opening during the follow-up period. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, both PRF and I-PRF demonstrated beneficial effects on postoperative healing following surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars. However, I-PRF provided superior early soft-tissue healing, reduced postoperative pain and swelling, and decreased periodontal pocket formation compared with conventional PRF. The findings suggest that I-PRF may represent a valuable adjunctive regenerative approach for improving early postoperative outcomes after third molar surgery.