Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37940776›Full record

Trial reportOral and maxillofacial surgery2024

Comparison of histologic and radiographic changes of sockets grafted with LPRF and sockets without intervention after tooth extraction.

Yousof Mousavi, M Paknejad, M Taheri, H Aslroosta, P Aminishakib, M Panjnoush, A Shamshiri

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yousof MousaviPeriodontist, Private Practice, Tehran, Iran. Ym.Mousavi@gmail.com.
M PaknejadDepartment of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
M TaheriPeriodontist, Private Practice, Tehran, Iran.
H AslroostaDepartment of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
P AminishakibOral and Maxillofacial Pathology Department, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
M PanjnoushOral and Maxillofacial Radiology Department, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
A ShamshiriDepartment of Community Oral Health, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Tehran University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Cone-Beam Computed TomographyPlatelet-Rich FibrinTooth ExtractionTooth SocketAdultAgedAlveolar Bone LossFemaleHumansLeukocytesMaleMiddle AgedAlveolar ridge augmentationDental implantsPlatelet-rich fibrinTooth socket

Identifiers

PMID37940776
OpenAlexW4388501377

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.