ArticleCureus2023
Platelet-Rich Fibrin-Enhanced Bone Healing Co-grafted With Either Hydroxyapatite and Beta Tricalcium Phosphate or Demineralized Freeze-Dried Bone in Small Maxillofacial Osseous Defects: A Clinical Comparison.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Advantages of horizontal centrifugation of platelet-rich fibrin in regenerative medicine and dentistry.Periodontology 2000 · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study was conducted to clinically compare a commercially available combination of 70:30 nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite (HA) and beta tricalcium phosphate (βTCP) along with platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) with demineralized freeze-dried bone (DFDB) grafts along with PRF in small maxillofacial osseous defects. MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty patients with one osseous defect were randomly distributed into two groups of 15 each: Group A and Group B. Group A patients received HA+βTCP+PRF while Group B received DFDB + PRF. Postoperative pain, swelling, wound dehiscence, and the presence or absence of infection were evaluated at various intervals up to seven postop days and compared between the two groups and within either group. A technetium 99m methylene diphosphonate (MDP
resultsWe found no significant difference between the two groups for any of our parameters. Significant improvements were noted for pain and swelling within either group at various intervals. The MDP
conclusionsHA+βTCP is more inexpensive than DFDB and more readily available and has no host incompatibility or infection potential, resulting in similar clinical postoperative states as DFDB when either is used with PRF.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.