Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31577533›Full record

SynthesisBlood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue2019

The use of platelet-rich plasma in oral surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Massimo Franchini, Mario Cruciani, Carlo Mengoli, Francesca Masiello, Giuseppe Marano, Ernesto D'Aloja, Cristina Dell'Aringa, Ilaria Pati, Eva Veropalumbo, Simonetta Pupella and 2 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Local interventions for the management of alveolar osteitis (dry socket).The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. PRF and PRP in Dentistry: An Umbrella Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Biotherapeutic Applications of Platelet-Rich Plasma in Regenerative Medicine.Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2023
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Massimo FranchiniItalian National Blood Centre, National Institute of Health, Rome, Italy.
Mario CrucianiItalian National Blood Centre, National Institute of Health, Rome, Italy.
Carlo MengoliItalian National Blood Centre, National Institute of Health, Rome, Italy.
Francesca MasielloItalian National Blood Centre, National Institute of Health, Rome, Italy.
Giuseppe MaranoItalian National Blood Centre, National Institute of Health, Rome, Italy.
Ernesto D'AlojaStudio D'Aloja, Arbizzano di Negrar (VR), Italy.
Cristina Dell'AringaPostgraduate School of Orthodontics, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.
Ilaria PatiItalian National Blood Centre, National Institute of Health, Rome, Italy.
Eva VeropalumboItalian National Blood Centre, National Institute of Health, Rome, Italy.
Simonetta PupellaItalian National Blood Centre, National Institute of Health, Rome, Italy.
Stefania VaglioItalian National Blood Centre, National Institute of Health, Rome, Italy.
Giancarlo M LiumbrunoItalian National Blood Centre, National Institute of Health, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the benefit of platelet rich plasma (PRP) in oral surgery. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe performed a systematic search of the literature. The GRADE system was used to assess the certainty of the body of evidence.

resultsWe found 21 randomised controlled trials that met our inclusion criteria: 12 studies included patients with periodontal defects, five studies focused on healing of extraction sockets, three studies on sinus lift augmentation, and one study on periapical osseous defects. However, for the quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis), we evaluated "periodontal defects" studies only, since for other clinical contexts the number of studies were too low and the procedural heterogeneity was too high to allow pooling of data. PRP-containing regimens were compared to non-PRP-containing regimens. Primary outcomes for the evaluation of periodontal defects were probing depths, clinical attachment level, gingival recession, and radiographic bone defect. It is not usually clear whether or not the use of PRP compared to controls affects "probing depth" at long-term follow up; the between group differences were small and unlikely to be of clinical importance (i.e., very low quality of evidence). For the other outcomes analysed ("clinical attachment levels", "gingival recession", "bony defect"), we observed a very slight marginal clinical benefit of PRP compared to controls. The available evidence for these comparisons was rated as low quality as most of the studies selected showed inconsistency, imprecision, and risk of bias. DISCUSSION: Evidence from a comparison between the use in oral surgery of PRP-containing regimens compared to other regimens not-containing PRP was of low quality. The results of the meta-analysis, limited to studies in patients with periodontal defects, document that PRP was slightly more effective compared to controls not-containing PRP.

Indexed as

Platelet-Rich PlasmaHumansOral Surgical ProceduresPeriodontal DiseasesTreatment OutcomeWound Healing

Identifiers

PMID31577533
PMCPMC6774927

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.