| Objective: By comparing and observing the experimental results of two kinds of platelet rich fibrin(Platelet-Rich fibrin and Advanced Platelet-Rich fibrin) to induce regeneration of soft tissue defects of rabbit palate repair,and analyzing application characteristics and advantages of the two biological material,in order to provide certain reference basis for the selection of clinical oral soft tissue regeneration materials.Methods: 54 male Japanese big ear rabbits were randomly divided into 3 groups(APRF group,PRF group and Blank control group), with 18 rats in each group. Prepare soft tissue defect model of each animal hard palate: from the front of maxillary rear incisors and left and right edge of the hard palate mucosa around 2mm. APRF membrane groups were implanted autologous APRF membrane in the defect, PRF membrane groups were implanted autologous PRF membrane in the defect, blank control group without any treatment. After 3 days, 7 days, 11 days, 15 days, 21 days, 28 days, Firstly morphological observation of each animal operation area was carried out and the wound healing rate was analyzed, and then all animals were sacrificed that underwent surgery area drawn HE staining,Masson staining,CD105 immunohistochemical staining, ELISA analysis the concentration of Hydroxyproline and four growth factors(platelet-derived growth factor, PDGF;transforming growth factor β1, TGF-β1; vascular endothelial growth factor,VEGF; tumor necrosis factor α, TNF-α),observing the inflammatory reaction, angiogenesis, collagen fiber formation and growth factor release at each time points, the data obtained by SPSS23.0 analysis software for processing.Result:1.Morphological observation: In the early stage of traum(7 days after operationa),the wound inflammatory reactions of APRF and PRF groups were mild, blank control group were obvious; after 15 days of operation, APRF and PRF groups wound epithelial were completely coveraged, no tissue depression,no scar formation. In the healing process of tissue, the control group appeared different degree of depression, and ultimately there was scar tissue formation.2.Wound healing rate: 3 days after operation, the three groups had no significant difference(P > 0.05); 7 days and 11 days after operation, APRF group and PRF group had no significant difference(P > 0.05), APRF group, PRF group and blank control group had significant difference(P < 0.05). Thus, the difference of wound healing rate between APRF group and PRF group were not very obvious, but were significantly better than the blank control group.3.HE stainingInflammatory score: 3 days after operation, the blank control group was higher than APRF group and PRF group, with significant difference(P < 0.05), APRF group and blank control group had no significant difference(P > 0.05); 7 days after operation, Blank control group >PRF group >APRF group, with significant difference(P < 0.05); 11 days after transplantation, APRF group and PRF group had no significant difference(P > 0.05), both of which were smaller than that of the blank control group, with significant difference(P < 0.05); 15 days, 21 days and 28 days after operation, the three groups had no significant difference(P > 0.05).4.CD105 immunohistochemical stainingCD105 average optical density value: 3 days after operation, APRF group > blank control group, with significant difference(P < 0.05), APRF group and PRF group, PRF group and blank control group had no significant difference(P > 0.05). 7 days after operation, APRF group >PRF group > blank control group, with significant difference(P < 0.05). 11 days after operation, APRF group and PRF group had no significant difference(P > 0.05), both of which were higher than the blank control group, with significant difference(P < 0.05). 15 days, 21 days after operation, APRF group and PRF group had no significant difference(P > 0.05), both of which were higher than the blank control group, with significant difference(P < 0.05); 28 days after operation,, the three groups had no significant difference(P > 0.05).5.Masson stainingCollagen fiber average optical density value: 3 days after operation, the three groups had no significant difference(P > 0.05); 7 days, 11 days, 15 days after operation, APRF group >PRF group > blank control group, with significant difference(P < 0.05); 21 days after operation, APRF group and PRF group, APRF group and blank control group had no significant difference(P > 0.05), PRF group < blank control group, with significant difference(P < 0.05); 28 days after operation, APRF group <PRF group < blank control group, with significant difference(P < 0.05).6.Quantitative analysis of ELISAConcentration value of Hydroxyproline : 3 days, 7 days, 11 days, 15 days after operation, APRF group and PRF group had no significant difference(P > 0.05), both of which were higher than that of blank control group, with significant difference(P < 0.05); 21 days, 28 days after operation, the three groups had no significant difference(P > 0.05).Concentration value of Platelet derived growth factors: 3 days after operation, the three groups had no significant difference(P > 0.05); 7 days, 11 days after operation, APRF group >PRF group > blank control group, with significant difference(P < 0.05); 15 days, 21 days after operation, APRF group and PRF group had no significant difference(P > 0.05), both of which were higher than that of blank control group, with significant difference(P < 0.05); 28 days after operation, the three groups had no significant difference(P > 0.05).Concentration value of Transforming growth factor β1: 3 days, 28 days after operation, APRF group and PRF group had no significant difference(P > 0.05), both of which were higher than that of blank control group, with significant difference(P < 0.05); 7 days, 11 days, 15 days and 21 days after operation, APRF group >PRF group > blank control group, with significant difference(P < 0.05).Concentration value of Vascular endothelial growth factor(VEGF) : 3 days, 7 days after operation, APRF group >PRF group > blank control group, with significant difference(P < 0.05). 11 days, 15 days, 21 days,28 days after operation, APRF group and PRF group had no significant difference(P > 0.05), both of which were higher than that of blank control group, with significant difference(P < 0.05).Concentration value of Tumor necrosis factor α: 3 days after operation, APRF group and PRF group had no significant difference(P > 0.05), both of which were higher than that of blank control group, with significant difference(P < 0.05).7 days, 11 days after operation, APRF group >PRF group > blank control group, with significant difference(P < 0.05). 15 days, 21 days after operation, APRF group was higher than that of PRF group and blank control group, with significant difference(P < 0.05), PRF group and blank control group had no significant difference(P > 0.05); 28 days after operation, the three groups had no significant difference(P > 0.05).Conclusion:1.APRF and PRF could reduce inflammation of wound area, in the early stage of trauma(7 days after operationa), the anti-inflammatory of PRF is better, in the middle of trauma(7 days to 15 days after operationa), the anti-inflammatory of APRF is better than PRF.2.In the promotion of angiogenesis, the effect of APRF is better than PRF.3.The promotion of collagen synthesis and degradation, APRF is better than that of PRF, both of them can reduce scar formation, improving the quality of wound healing.4.Compared with PRF, APRF can release more growth factors related to soft tissue healing. |
PDF Full Text Request