Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32168533›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2020

Effect of A-PRF Application on Palatal Wound Healing after Free Gingival Graft Harvesting: A Prospective Randomized Study.

Filipa Sousa, Vanessa Machado, João Botelho, Luís Proença, José João Mendes, Ricardo Alves

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of dentistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. L-PRF in extra-oral wound care.Periodontology 2000 · 2025
    Review
  20. Article
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Filipa SousaDepartment of Periodontology, Clinical Research Unit (CRU), Centro de Investigação Interdisciplinar Egas Moniz (CiiEM), Instituto Universitário Egas Moniz, Almada, Portugal.
Vanessa MachadoDepartment of Periodontology, Clinical Research Unit (CRU), Centro de Investigação Interdisciplinar Egas Moniz (CiiEM), Instituto Universitário Egas Moniz, Almada, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-2503-260X
João BotelhoDepartment of Periodontology, Clinical Research Unit (CRU), Centro de Investigação Interdisciplinar Egas Moniz (CiiEM), Instituto Universitário Egas Moniz, Almada, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-1019-8263
Luís ProençaCentro de Investigação Interdisciplinar Egas Moniz (CiiEM), Instituto Universitário Egas Moniz, Almada, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-8482-5936
José João MendesCentro de Investigação Interdisciplinar Egas Moniz (CiiEM), Instituto Universitário Egas Moniz, Almada, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-0167-4077
Ricardo AlvesDepartment of Periodontology, Clinical Research Unit (CRU), Centro de Investigação Interdisciplinar Egas Moniz (CiiEM), Instituto Universitário Egas Moniz, Almada, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-7184-5965
Escola Superior de Saúde Egas Moniz · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate the healing effect of advanced platelet-rich fibrin (A-PRF) clot membranes in palatal wounds, resulting from free gingival graft (FGG) harvesting, on the reepithelization rate and on the pain experience after surgery. MATERIALS AND

methodsTwenty-five patients requiring FGG have participated in this prospective cohort study. After FGG harvesting, the test group (

resultsA-PRF group had higher palatal wound reduction than the control group, at 7, 14, and 30 days of follow-up. The highest difference between the groups was attained at 30 days (91.5% for A-PRF vs. 59.0% control group). At 14 days, a significant difference in the proportion of patients showing total epithelization was found: 64.3% for A-PRF versus 9.1% for the control group. At 90 days, both groups showed total recovery. The control group experienced higher pain level and discomfort until the 14th day, being notably higher on the second day.

conclusionThe results suggest that A-PRF membranes haste the healing process, and promote greater reduction along the recovery period and less painful postoperative period.

Identifiers

PMID32168533
PMCPMC7069756
OpenAlexW2921593810

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.