Abstract
The ultimate goal of research on platelet concentrates (PCs) is to develop a more predictable PC therapy. Because platelet-rich plasma (PRP), a representative PC, was identified as a possible therapeutic agent for bone augmentation in the field of oral surgery, PRP and its derivative, platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), have been increasingly applied in a regenerative medicine. However, a rise in the rate of recurrence (e.g., in tendon and ligament injuries) and adverse (or nonsignificant) clinical outcomes associated with PC therapy have raised fundamental questions regarding the validity of the therapy. Thus, rigorous evidence obtained from large, high-quality randomized controlled trials must be presented to the concerned regulatory authorities of individual countries or regions. For the approval of the regulatory authorities, clinicians and research investigators should understand the real nature of PCs and PC therapy (i.e., adjuvant therapy), standardize protocols of preparation (e.g., choice of centrifuges and tubes) and clinical application (e.g., evaluation of recipient conditions), design bias-minimized randomized clinical trials, and recognize superfluous brand competitions that delay sound progress. In this review, we retrospect the recent past of PC research, reconfirm our ultimate goals, and discuss what will need to be done in future.
Highlights
Since the first study on bone regeneration [1], the aim of platelet concentrate (PC) research has been to establish a basis for the safer, more effective, and more predictable clinical use of platelet concentrates (PCs) therapy
We look back on the recent history of PC research, reconfirm the ultimate goals of this field, and discuss a plan of action for the future
Because PC derivatives are able to provide both growth factors and scaffolding materials, such as -degradable fibrin, the triangle can be rebuilt by adding the appropriate stem cells
Summary
Since the first study on bone regeneration [1], the aim of platelet concentrate (PC) research has been to establish a basis for the safer, more effective, and more predictable clinical use of PC therapy. Fundamental questions regarding the clinical efficacy of PCs have been raised increasingly over the past two decades, to the point that PC therapy has been called disappointing and a “mirage”, “miracle”, or “myth” [2]. This may be due to the rapid global spread of PCs without having first established robust evidence. To our knowledge, their clinical use has not yet been endorsed convincingly by either observational or interventional studies. We look back on the recent history of PC research, reconfirm the ultimate goals of this field, and discuss a plan of action for the future
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.