Premium
The Harvest Smart PReP TM system versus the Friadent‐Schütze platelet‐rich plasma kit
Author(s) -
Weibrich Gernot,
Kleis Wilfried K. G.,
Buch Rainer,
Hitzler Walter E.,
Hafner Gerd
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.140215.x
Subject(s) - platelet , platelet rich plasma , growth factor , chemistry , medicine , andrology , receptor
An important reason to improve methods for isolating platelet‐rich plasma (PRP) is the potential use of autogenous platelet growth factors. In addition to the Curasan PRP kit (Curasan, Kleinostheim, Germany) and the platelet concentrated collection system (PCCS TM ) system, two new methods for the preparation of PRP by the surgeon are now available. This study compared the suitability of these new methods for the preparation of PRP. Whole blood was drawn from 54 healthy donors (33 men and 21 women) aged 23–79 years (38.0 ± 17.7 years). PRP was prepared from each donor's blood using both the Smart PReP TM system (Harvest Technologies Corporation, Munich, Germany) and the Friadent‐Schütze method (PRP kit; Friadent‐Schütze, Vienna, Austria). The platelet count in donor whole blood was 276 810 ± 59 440 /μl. Platelet counts differed significantly between the Smart PRP preparation (1227 890 ± 312 440 platelets/μl) and the Friadent‐Schütze PRP preparation (1440 500 ± 501 700 platelets/μl) (sign test, P < 0.001). The Smart PReP TM system had a significantly higher collection efficiency (63.4 ± 7.9%) than the Friadent‐Schütze kit (49.6 ± 13.6%) (sign test, P < 0.001). The leukocyte contents in the two platelet concentrates were similar (Smart PReP TM , 19 261 ± 8082 platelets/μl; Friadent‐Schütze, 21 691 ± 16 430). Transforming growth factor (TGF)‐β1 and platelet‐derived growth factor (PDGF)‐AB were higher in the Friadent‐Schütze PRP (TGF‐β1, 196.8 ± 109.6 ng/ml; PDGF‐AB, 251.6 ± 115.4 ng/ml) than in the Smart PReP TM (TGF‐β1, 77.2 ± 54.8 ng/ml; PDGF‐AB, 208 ± 85.2 ng/ml). The sign test indicated significant differences between the two methods in the concentrations of TGF‐β1 ( P < 0.001) and PDGF‐AB ( P < 0.01). Insulin‐like growth factor (IGF)‐1 levels in the two PRP preparations were similar (Friadent‐Schütze PRP, 72.8 ± 22.3 ng/ml; Smart PReP TM , 91.4 ± 21.3 ng/ml). The Smart PReP TM system was superior with respect to ease of handling and preparation time. It also had a significantly higher platelet collection efficiency than the Friadent‐Schütze PReP TM kit. The Friadent‐Schütze PRP kit offers a slight advantage in the resulting PRP platelet concentration. However, this is easily compensated for in the Smart PReP TM system by reducing the volume of the resulting PRP.