Trial reportOral and maxillofacial surgery2024
Comparison of histologic and radiographic changes of sockets grafted with LPRF and sockets without intervention after tooth extraction.
Trial report in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of cells and/or biologics combined with scaffolds in alveolar bone augmentation for implant site development.Journal of periodontology · 2026Pooled it
- The efficacy of platelet-rich fibrin in alveolar ridge preservation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- The histological and radiological evaluation of autologous peripheral venous blood concentrates in socket preservation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Applications of Platelet-Rich Fibrin (PRF) Membranes Alone or in Combination with Biomimetic Materials in Oral Regeneration: A Narrative Review.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Effect of Ethyl-Cyanoacrylate and Platelet-Rich Fibrin on Fresh Sockets of Rabbits Subjected to Anticoagulant Therapy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Autologous leucocyte and platelet rich in fibrin (L-PRF) - is it a competitive solution for bone augmentation in maxillary sinus lift? A 6-month radiological comparison between xenografts and L-PRF.Medicine and pharmacy reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAfter tooth extraction, marked resorption occurs in extraction socket walls, leading to functional and esthetic problems in that area. One of the methods introduced to reduce this resorption is the use of platelet derivatives. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of leukocyte and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) on the changes following tooth extraction. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe participants were 24 patients who needed to replace at least one single-rooted tooth with an implant. They were randomly divided into test and control groups. After the tooth extraction, the sockets in the test group received LPRF clots, while in the control group, the sockets were left free of any interventions. CBCT scans were obtained from the extraction site both immediately after the tooth extraction and 8 weeks later. The histologic biopsy was also obtained while the implant site was being prepared 8 weeks after the extraction.
resultsThe average vertical bone loss in the buccal crest was not significantly different between the two groups (1.67 ± 1.67 in the test group and 2.3 ± 1.36 in the control group; mean difference = - 0.36, 95% CI: - 1.65-0.93, p-value = 0.57). Nor was the difference in resorption of the palatal wall (mean difference = - 0.19, 95% CI: - 1.51.12, p-value = 0.76). The mean ridge width resorption in 25% of the coronal aspect of sockets was also measured in the test (1.30 ± 0.66) and control group (0.58 ± 0.95) (mean difference = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.03-1.42, p-value = 0.04). The new bone formation in histologic view was not statistically different between groups (p-value = 0.15).
conclusionThe LPRF neither reduces the rate of ridge resorption in vertical or horizontal dimensions of extraction sockets nor induces more new bone formation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study helps dentists choose the appropriate material for ridge preservation.
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.