LAUSR

Background/Objective. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has a widespread use in various indications including dermatological conditions. Injectable platelet-rich fibrin on the other hand is prepared without anticoagulants and seems to have a sustained action. This study aimed to compare PRP and PRF injection treatments for facial skin rejuvenation in terms of efficacy, patient satisfaction, and side effects. Patients and Methods. Patients who received facial intradermal injections of PRP or PRF for skin rejuvenation were included in this study. Patients received three injections one month apart and evaluated at follow-up visits for cosmetic results using a high-resolution UVA-light video camera and a surface evaluation software at three regions (frontal, nasolabial, and canthal) as well as for patient satisfaction and side effects. Results. A significant marginal superiority of PRF over PRP was only evident for some canthal cosmetic parameters (canthal smoothness and wrinkles); however, the two groups did not differ in terms of other cosmetic regional parameters. For canthal smoothness, the difference was significant at three months. The two groups did not differ in terms of side effects, pain, and patient satisfaction. Conclusion. This study obtained slightly better outcomes with PRF injections when compared to PRP for facial rejuvenation only at canthal region and only at three months, which disappeared later during the treatment. PRF may represent a viable alternative to PRP for that indication owing to its easier preparation, absence of anticoagulants, and possibly its sustained effect. Further large studies are warranted.