GBR with CGF Membrane
Dr. Dong-Seok Sohn demonstrates guided bone regeneration (GBR) using a concentrated growth factor (CGF) membrane.
Guided bone generation (GBR) is one of popular method to augment bone defect associated with implant placement. Resorbable or non-resorbable membrane is required to exclude soft tissue ingrowth into the bone graft for successful GBR. Variable platelet concentrates have been introduced to accelerate new bone formation. Recently autologous fibrin rich block with concentrated growth factors (CGF) was introduced by Dr. Sacco in 2006. CGF doesn’t require any chemical or allergenic additives, such as bovine thrombin or anticoagulants unlike PRP and PRGF, so it is free from viral transmission disease. CGF barrier can be used as alternatives to resorbable membrane in GBR and bone graft in sinus augmentation, and it accelerates new bone formation. This case report demonstrates the application of CGF barrier for GBR to accelerate new bone formation.
Figure 1: Special centrifuge for the preparation of CGF (Medifuge, Silfradent srl, Sofia, Italy), one step protocol is needed to obtain CGF from patient’s venous blood sample.
Figure 2: Concentrated growth factors are aggregated in the middle layer after 12 minutes centrifugation using variable speed. Red corpuscles of lower layer is separated from fibrin clot with scissor before use
Figure 3: 65 year old woman visited our department to replace the missing #18and #19 with implant supported prosthesis. Cortical perforation was done before implant placement. Two Implants (Legacy implant, Implant Direct LLC, USA) were placed. Note dehiscence defect around implant.
Figure 4: 6 pieces of GCF were prepared from the patient's blood with the Medifuge machine.
Figure 5: 3 pieces of dense CGF barrier were prepared by compression of CGF fibrin block.
Figure 6: Allograft (Orthoblast II®, IsoTis Orthobiologics, Irvine, CA and Allotis®, Bio-Tis, Korea) was mixed with CGF. Gel conditioned bone graft was gained.
Figure 7: The mixture of allograft and CGF was grafted to augment the thin alveolar ridge. Thanks to gel conditioned bone graft, bone graft maintained the shape. This was beneficial for space maintenance.
Figure 8: Three pieces of CGF barrier were covered on the bone graft to exclude soft tissue ingrowth into the bone graft and to accelerate new bone formation and soft tissue healing.
Figure 9: After only 12 weeks healing, implants were exposed and excellent bone regeneration was gained.
Figure 10: Final restorations after 2 months of loading.
Figure 11: Radiograph at 2 months loading.
Compressed CGF can be used barrier membrane with growth factors as alternative collagen membrane. This barrier induces faster formation and soft tissue healing. When it is mixed with bone graft, faster bone formation can be obtained as seen in this case report. When CGF is applied to donor site of connective tissue graft, it reduces pain and inflammation and bleeding tendency. In addition, faster soft tissue healing can be obtained. CGF can be applied for sinus augmentation to induce faster new bone formation too.


Comments
information of buying medifuge centrifuge, important
hi, I'm Phd student at Gazi university dentistry faculty, periodontology department in Turkey. Please, can you help me for buying medifuge centrifuge device.
best wishes....
concentrated growth factor
sir
i am a postgraduate student from india. i wish to do my dissertation on CGF. can u please tell me the protocol of making CGF?
Protocol of CGF
dear Dr,
You need specific centrifuge (Medifuge, Silfradent, Italy) to make CGF because CGF used different rpm for 12 min.
Thank you DS
DSSOHN: How does CGF differ from PRP, PRGF and PRF?
DSSOHN: How does CGF differ from PRP, PRGF and PRF?
Reply to Shazlovely
PRP and PRGF use chemical additives to make gel oondition such as bovine thrombin and calcium chloride.
Pipettin procedure of PRP and PRGF is annoying and time consming procedure,
In addition, 10 % volume of taken venous blood can used clinically.
According to Weibrich (2005)'s study, PRP shows higher concentrated growth factors than PRGF.
PRF and CGF do not use any addtives to make gel condition. Easy to make.
Just one time centrifugation is required.
I think CGF is started basically from PRF.
Pleass see the other my comments on the differences between CGF and PRF on this web site
Thank you
DS
Congratulations
Congratulations for new progress in dentistry! I really apreciate your cases and your techiques& good results.
Calin Cioban
guilding the lilly
Dr Sohn,
With all due respect, if you felt you needed a wider ridge to place the implants in a more anatomical position why didn't you do a ridge widening graft first with the particulate or monocortical graft and then place the implants in a less lingual position?
The photo shows the implants to be in excellent bone and we know that the mandibular bone resists resorption better than maxillary bone. The science for this is questionable. PRP is proven and we should not lead less experienced dentists to believe that they should disregard what PRP can offer.
Thanks
Answer to Dr.sdm8248
Thank you for your good question.
I posted similiar answer before.
Please visit at http://jiacd.com/dental-implants/gbr-cgf-membrane#comment-1482 for details
This case had very narrow ridge, but I don't think the implants located ligually. Please see the postion of crown.
If you don't GBR in this case, You will meet the probelm in the future.
I wanted to see the effect of CGF (or PRF) barrier as alternatives to collagen membrane for GBR with my naked eyes in this case. You can use collagne or PRP of you want, too
I had used PRP for several years but I stopped to use it any more due to several reasons.
PRP is controversary too.
Please read this systemic review on PRP ( Effect of platelet-rich plasma on bone regeneration in dentistry: a systematic review, Plachokova AS et al, 2008)
You can read Choukrous's articles too to know PRF's advantages to PRP.
I do staged procedure but I prefer one staged procedure for reducing No, of surgery and healing time in horizontal augmentation.
I do Distration, block bone and Ti-mesh assisted and etc. and I always to think what procedure is benifitable to my patinetson time, cost and long term stability as you do.
By the way, what doed the title of your question mean?
I do not find that pharse in the dictionary.
Best wishes
Ds
The photos are fine.
Thank you for posting your case Dr. Sohn. The photos are fine concerning resolution. I can see that the distal implant has thin bone coronally. Agreed that 2mm bone is needed to house all aspects of the implant for best result.
2mm bone best, but...
I agree that 2mm bone housing is best for implants in a perfect world. This is not always acheivable, however, nor 100% necessary in all cases.
cgf technique
dear DR Sohn can you tell me the technique of the CGF in detail.
cgf technique
Basic technique is as same as PRF's
The differences is speed of control.
PRF use one rpm, but CGF use variable rpm by automatic control.
So PRF can be made by conventional lab centrifuge but CGF need specific device.
This is all I konw about.
Professor Rodella's study shows many differences between two.
You are correct. That is what is great about JIACD
Drs. Sohn and Choukroun,
You are both to be respected as generous contributors to our profession. While evidence based research is the foundation for our treatment, we must not forget clinical results. That is why I love JIACD. It has a nice balance of evidence AND clinical results. Most other journals are either all science and no clinical, or all clinical with absolutely zero science.
I don't care if it's called PRF, CGF, etc. As long as it works. You cannot patent a procedure. If it helps patients, people are going to use it even if it is patented. That's just the reality of life.
You are right dr. Smith
The most important thing is how to care our patients with minimal discomfort.
Dr. Chouroun should be respedted as developer of PRF to reduce healing period.His original technique is useful to our patients. Every one can reproduce his prf by conventionl lab centrifuge without patent problem.
DS
Don't sell the "ordinary" as "extra-ordinary"
Dear Dr. Sohn, I read the posts to your published case and agree with the people who consider this as a brute copy of PRF. Personally, I dont' consider so important if your protocol - when will demonstrate something of scientific from the research point of view - can demonstrate a major amount of GF into the product respect PRF or other protocols. Nobody can tell us, today, if there is a minimal amount of GF required or can correlate a clinical result, like the one you showed, with a certain amount of GF. The problem, is, in my opinion, not to sell a "natural result" as an "extra-ordinary" clinical result: I don't see, in pic. 3, any significative defect to be treated with GF, or membrane or anything else. You simply have a thick crest, with two implants well positioned, and no indication to support the jumping distance with biomaterials or other additives. By simply suturing periosteal membrane, the same result could be probably obtained.
So probably, today, the problem is not which technique we use, but the correct diagnosis done before.
Best regards.
Please see the pic 3 very carefully again
Thank you for your commnent on this case.
However you missed somthing importnat on diagnosis of this case.
The body of # 16 implant is seen through the thin crestal ridge. And # 17 implant has very thin ridge too.
You can see apically sloped ridge.
Don't you perform augmentation in this case ?
Please see the pic 3 carefully again
I don't do GBR if bone around implant is thick (2 mm thick or more).
I don't have any reason to sell bone material to my patient with thick bone aroud implant.
However If you do not GBR in this case, you will see the failure of implants in a few years loading.
You can see the differeces of ridge thickness between before GBR and final result.
Final photo shows flat and thicend ridge, compared to preoperative sloped ridge.
As you said, The important thing is to know when bone augmentaion should be performed by precise diagnosis.
what material use is next one.
I'd like to recommed you to perform augmentaion if the ridge was 1mm less thick around implant.
Maybe you can misdiagnosis due to poor resolution of photos. I can e-mail you good resolution images.
best regards
DS
Comments on photos, good case
Yes, Dr. Sohn, probably the resolution of the photo is not sufficient to show the thiny crest around the implant (so, you agree with me, we're not talking about "dehiscence defect around implant", as we don't see exposed spires..). You're right when you say there must be at least 1-2mm of bone buccally to assure long term predictability of the implant, but we know that the same result you show can be obtained with biomaterial appositional graft, cortical perforation (as you showed very well) and coverage of the site with integral periosteum, appropriate healing time depending upon the nature of the graft. Have you any case of vertical ridge regeneration? This would be very extra-ordinary if performed without classic membranes... Anyway, congratulation for the result.
reply to photos, good case
Yes, we can have same result from conventional other method as you said. If I used to bone graft and resorbable membrane in this case, 5-6 monhts healing was allowed in my practice. I want to test the efficay of PRF and CGF. Do they accelerate healing or not? How can i confirm that ? So I waited just 3 m until uncoverin to see the results with my naked eyes. I perforemd many GBR with CGF and bone graft. average healing period was 3-4M depending on patient's sitution. I have similiar vertical case too. samll veritcally augmented case was posted in dentaltown and icoikorea.org(free to be member) Until now, I believe CGF acceletates tissue regeneration. PRF is same, I think. I don't believe all data from literature. I believe more my clinical results when I applied the method articles say. Thank you DS
dear Dr Sohn.
i use 2800 rbm for 12 minutes to get cgf is that correct rpm
answer to Dr.tahaelmadboly
As I know, you are making PRF, not CGF.
CGF use variable rpm on time.
However No problems with PRF for clinical applications as Dr. Choukroun's articels says.
Thank you
DS
Dr. Sohn: Great Case excellent surgery
CGF or not you can argue with that result. Very nice surgery and bone regeneration.
I must agree with Dr. Choukroun: Must be evidence based
I cant stress the importance of evidence based papers before claims are made. Not to say that CGF doesnt have its place but there is more hard science with PRP, PRGF and PRF. I am eager to see papers on this.
I must agree with Dr. Choukroun: Must be evidence based
You are right.
I hope to read the articles on CGF sooner or later too..I just read unpublished data
DS
CGF my opinion was already delivered
I said about CGF: vulgar copy of early PRF.
No publications yet. You say that you have more growth factors. I seriously doubt your results.
I have the impression of seeing the PRF membranes obtained in the early 2000s.
We are in science medicine. we must be serious.
CGF my opinion was already delivered
Dear Dr. Choukroun,
This is not my data but prof. Rodeall and Dr. Sacoo's data as I said before
When I published my artilce on sinus augmentaion with PRF alone in 2008, I used medifuge not PC O2 .
Even though I used medifuge, I used term of PRF in my article beacuse I din't see any article on CGF.
I thought CGF is just copy of PRF at that time.
However I started to use the term of CGF after reading Prof. Rodella's study.
As you concerned, more scientific data on CGF is required, but soon or later, the data will be published as I know.
I don't want to be in argument on CGF and PRF.
You are deserved to be respected as PRF deveoper.
DS
Dr. Sohn, thank you for sharing case. Very nice.
Dr. Sohn,
Thank you for sharing your case and technique. You have many nice articles and I look forward to reading your future writings.
V/R
SS
Differences between CGF and PRF: Published papers
The main difference I see between CGF and PRF is published papers. I havent seen anything on CGF while PRF has mutiple papers published. Both have alot to prove in comparison to PRP publications.
The diferences bt CGF & PRF
You are right. Few articles on CGF was publised except for my articles published in Asia.
CGF is originally based on PRF. However according to Pr. Rodella's study,CGF shows much higer concentration of growth factors than PRF.
CGF use different rpm for 12 min. depending on time, but PRF use same rpm(3000 rpm) for 10 min.
Dr. Sohn. What is difference between CGF and PRF?
Dr. Sohn,
Thank you for the CGF post demonstrating your case. What is the difference between CGF and PRF? They look very similar to me. Are they the same thing with different names? The only thing I see different is the machine.
Thanks
Answer to Ti Doc
External apperance is almost same bt. PRF and CGF.
However ,according to prof Rodella's study, CGF has higher growth factors than PRF.
CGF has high tensile strength, much denser, much volume than PRF.
I tested CGF from medifuage and PRF from Korean PRF machine with my and resident's blood.
CGF showed much less volume shrinkage than PRF as time goes bu my test.
I have photos on that.