The short version
In one paragraph
PRP (Platelet-Rich Plasma) uses anticoagulants and high-speed centrifugation to produce a liquid concentrate of platelets. It releases growth factors quickly — most within hours. PRF (Platelet-Rich Fibrin) skips anticoagulants and uses slower centrifugation, producing a fibrin-rich preparation that releases growth factors over ~10 days. The biology of sustained release is the reason PRF outperforms PRP on most aesthetic indications.
Direct comparison
| Parameter | PRP | PRF |
|---|---|---|
| Anticoagulant added | Yes (citrate, EDTA, ACD-A) | No |
| Centrifugation | High speed (1500–3000+ g) | Lower speed, often horizontal |
| Form | Liquid | Liquid (i-PRF), gel (Alb-PRF), or clot (L-PRF) |
| Fibrin matrix | Absent (lost to anticoagulant) | Present — the defining feature |
| Growth-factor release | ~95% in first 4–6 hours | Sustained over ~10 days |
| Leukocyte content | Variable; often reduced | Retained |
| Risk of allergic reaction to additive | Low but possible (citrate) | None — no additives |
| Clinical evidence (modern) | Established, plateau | Growing, increasingly superior on direct comparison studies |
Why PRF wins on most indications
Three reasons:
- Sustained signaling. Tissue remodeling is a multi-day process. A 4-hour burst of growth factors initiates a response that the tissue can't complete before signaling ends. 10-day release stays present through the active phase of collagen synthesis.
- No exogenous additives. Anticoagulants like citrate are mild — but they're not part of normal tissue biology. PRF avoids them entirely.
- The fibrin scaffold itself is biologically active. It's a 3-D matrix that supports cell migration into the injection site. PRP delivers a soluble payload; PRF delivers payload + scaffolding.
Where PRP might still be used
- Combined with hyaluronic acid filler (PRP-HA) in some commercial preparations — proprietary product reasons.
- Joint injections and orthopedic use, where the local environment differs from soft tissue and PRP's faster delivery may be acceptable.
- Clinics that haven't updated their protocols. PRP is still widely offered. That doesn't make it better; it makes it familiar.
For aesthetic facial work — skin quality, under-eyes, hair, scars, volume — PRF is the better choice in 2026. The published direct-comparison studies have been consistent enough to make this a defensible default.
FAQ
If a clinic still offers 'PRP' should I avoid them?
Not necessarily. Ask what specific protocol they run. If they're trained only on PRP and don't have the centrifuges or tubes for PRF, that's worth knowing. Many clinics still do good work with PRP — it's just an older tool.
Is PRF more expensive than PRP?
Usually a bit more, because the consumables (specialized tubes, sometimes albumin for Alb-PRF) cost more. The price difference is modest. The clinical difference is meaningful.
Can I switch from PRP to PRF if I've been getting PRP?
Yes. There's no conflict between the two products; you don't need a washout period. We can shift you to PRF on your next session.
Why didn't PRF replace PRP earlier?
Three reasons: PRF requires different consumables and centrifuge protocols (so clinics had to invest in retraining), the early evidence base was thinner, and PRP had a head start in marketing. The science has caught up.
Want to know if this fits your case?
A short consultation clarifies whether PRF vs PRP is the right tool — or whether a different approach fits better. No commitment.