ReviewDentistry journal2023
Imaging Evaluation of Platelet-Rich Fibrin in Post-Exodontic Bone Regeneration: A Systematic Review.
Review in Dentistry journal, 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.
- Radiographic Evaluation in Alveolar Preservation Using Platelet-Rich Fibrin: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tooth extraction is the most common procedure in dental practice. However, in the long term, it may cause alveolar ridge atrophy. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the role of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) in post-exodontic alveolar ridge preservation in terms of its effectiveness in the regeneration of bone tissue as assessed by imaging and its efficacy compared to physiological bone healing. The study is presented in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. This systematic review was conducted using electronic databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct. The gray literature search was conducted in the New York Academy of Medicine Grey Literature Report. All the studies in this systematic review were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The risk of bias was performed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 6.2 (RevMan 6.2). Considering the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included 17 randomized clinical trials published up to 2022 investigating the efficacy of PRF in post-exodontic bone regeneration. Based on the results of clinical studies, it can be stated that despite not being statistically significant, PRF promotes neoformation and prevents bone loss between three and four months post-extraction.
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.