Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38487938›Full record

ReviewPeriodontology 20002025

Differences between first- and second-generation autologous platelet concentrates.

Elena Calciolari, Marina Dourou, Aliye Akcali, Nikolaos Donos

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Periodontology 2000, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
17.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Elena CalciolariCentre for Oral Clinical Research, Institute of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8781-1997
Marina DourouCentre for Oral Clinical Research, Institute of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Aliye AkcaliCentre for Oral Clinical Research, Institute of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Nikolaos DonosCentre for Oral Clinical Research, Institute of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4117-9073
Queen Mary University of London · GBUniversity of Parma · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Autologous platelet concentrates (APCs) applied alone or combined with other biomaterials are popular bioactive factors employed in regenerative medicine. The main biological rationale of using such products is to concentrate blood-derived growth factors and cells into the wound microenvironment to enhance the body's natural healing capacity. First-generation APC is represented by platelet-rich plasma (PRP). While different protocols have been documented for PRP preparation, they overall consist of two cycles of centrifugation and have important limitations related to the use of an anticoagulant first and an activator afterward, which may interfere with the natural healing process and the release of bioactive molecules. The second generation of platelet concentrates is represented by leukocyte and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF). L-PRF protocols involve a single centrifugation cycle and do not require the use of anticoagulants and activators, which makes the preparation more straight forward, less expensive, and eliminates potential risks associated with the use of activators. However, since no anticoagulant is employed, blood undergoes rapid clotting within the blood collection tube; hence, a timely management of L-PRF is crucial. This review provides an overview on the most documented protocols for APC preparations and critically discusses the main differences between first- and second-generation APCs in terms of cell content, protein release, and the formation of a 3D fibrin network. It appears evident that the inconsistency in reporting protocol parameters by most studies has contributed to conflicting conclusions regarding the efficacy of different APC formulations and has significantly limited the ability to interpret the results of individual clinical studies. In the future, the use of a standardized classification system, together with a detailed reporting on APC protocol parameters is warranted to make study outcomes comparable. This will also allow to clarify important aspects on the mechanism of action of APCs (like the role of leukocytes and centrifugation parameters) and to optimize the use of APCs in regenerative medicine.

Indexed as

Blood PlateletsPlatelet-Rich PlasmaCentrifugationHumansLeukocytesPlatelet-Rich FibrinRegenerative MedicineWound Healingautologous platelet concentratesclassificationL‐PRFPRGFPRPregenerative medicine

Identifiers

PMID38487938
PMCPMC11808449
OpenAlexW4392852004

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.