Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33665072›Full record

ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research

Advanced platelet-rich fibrin plus and osseous bone graft for socket preservation and ridge augmentation - A randomized control clinical trial.

Manasi Yewale, Subraya Bhat, Abhay Kamath, Aditi Tamrakar, Vathsala Patil, Adel S Algal

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Manasi YewaleDepartment of Periodontology, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India.
Subraya BhatDepartment of Periodontology, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India.
Abhay KamathDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India.
Aditi TamrakarDepartment of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India.
Vathsala PatilDepartment of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India.
Adel S AlgalPeriodontics, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Faisal University, Dammam KSA, Saudi Arabia.
Manipal Academy of Higher Education · INImam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the clinical and radiographic effectiveness of A PRF Plus as an adjuctive material to osseous bone graft in socket preservation and ridge augmentation.

methodsTwenty patients with need to preserve extraction socket in non-molar sites planning for further prosthetic rehabilitation were divided into two groups. Test Group (Group A) was treated with A PRF Plus membrane and Sybograf plus ™ (70% HA and 30 %β TCP) bone graft. The Control Group (Group B) was treated with Sybograf plus ™ (70% HA and 30% βTCP) bone graft. Both groups had same socket preservation surgical technique.

resultsBoth Group A and Group B showed significant improvement in clinical and radiographic parameters. Mean socket length, Vertical Resorption reduction in Group A was 1.48 whereas in Group B was 1.67 which is statistically significant. (p ​≤ ​0.05). Changes in Horizontal width reduction at 1,3, and 5 ​mm depth of the socket for both groups were not statistically significant. The Gain in socket fill for Group A and B 6 months postoperatively was 1185.30HU ± 473.21 and 966.60 HU ± 273.27 respectively. But intergroup comparison was not statistically significant. (p ​= ​0.17). There were no significant statistical differences in postoperative pain in Group A and Group B as subjects experienced moderate amount of pain. The assessment of post-operative swelling showed that only 30% subjects in Group A reported with swelling. Whereas 80% subjects in Group B complained of post-operative swelling.

conclusionThe results of the present study proved utilisation of A PRF Plus as a promising adjunct to conventional regenerative therapy for socket preservation.

Indexed as

A PRF PlusEstheticsExtraction socketImplantOsseous bone graftRidge preservationSocket preservation

Identifiers

PMID33665072
PMCPMC7900600
OpenAlexW3127775791

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.