Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCalciolari, E
dc.contributor.authorDourou, M
dc.contributor.authorAkcali, A
dc.contributor.authorDonos, N
dc.date.accessioned2024-05-14T07:48:52Z
dc.date.available2023-12-30
dc.date.available2024-05-14T07:48:52Z
dc.date.issued2024-03-15
dc.identifier.citationCalciolari E, Dourou M, Akcali A, Donos N. Differences between first- and second-generation autologous platelet concentrates. Periodontol 2000. 2024; 00: 1-22. doi:10.1111/prd.12550en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/96864
dc.description.abstractAutologous platelet concentrates (APCs) applied alone or combined with other biomaterials are popular bioactive factors employed in regenerative medicine. The main biological rationale of using such products is to concentrate blood-derived growth factors and cells into the wound microenvironment to enhance the body's natural healing capacity. First-generation APC is represented by platelet-rich plasma (PRP). While different protocols have been documented for PRP preparation, they overall consist of two cycles of centrifugation and have important limitations related to the use of an anticoagulant first and an activator afterward, which may interfere with the natural healing process and the release of bioactive molecules. The second generation of platelet concentrates is represented by leukocyte and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF). L-PRF protocols involve a single centrifugation cycle and do not require the use of anticoagulants and activators, which makes the preparation more straight forward, less expensive, and eliminates potential risks associated with the use of activators. However, since no anticoagulant is employed, blood undergoes rapid clotting within the blood collection tube; hence, a timely management of L-PRF is crucial. This review provides an overview on the most documented protocols for APC preparations and critically discusses the main differences between first- and second-generation APCs in terms of cell content, protein release, and the formation of a 3D fibrin network. It appears evident that the inconsistency in reporting protocol parameters by most studies has contributed to conflicting conclusions regarding the efficacy of different APC formulations and has significantly limited the ability to interpret the results of individual clinical studies. In the future, the use of a standardized classification system, together with a detailed reporting on APC protocol parameters is warranted to make study outcomes comparable. This will also allow to clarify important aspects on the mechanism of action of APCs (like the role of leukocytes and centrifugation parameters) and to optimize the use of APCs in regenerative medicine.en_US
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherWileyen_US
dc.relation.ispartofPeriodontol 2000
dc.rightsThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
dc.subjectL-PRFen_US
dc.subjectPRGFen_US
dc.subjectPRPen_US
dc.subjectautologous platelet concentratesen_US
dc.subjectclassificationen_US
dc.subjectregenerative medicineen_US
dc.titleDifferences between first- and second-generation autologous platelet concentrates.en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.holder© 2024 The Authors. Periodontology 2000 published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/prd.12550
pubs.author-urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38487938en_US
pubs.notesNot knownen_US
pubs.publication-statusPublished onlineen_US
dcterms.dateAccepted2023-12-30
rioxxterms.funderDefault funderen_US
rioxxterms.identifier.projectDefault projecten_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record