ReviewDental research journal2024
Efficacy of platelet-rich fibrin in papilla reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Dental research journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy of the injectable platelet-rich fibrin (i-PRF) in gingival phenotype modification: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC oral health · 2024Pooled it
- The effect of the injectable platelet-rich fibrin on peri-implant soft tissue phenotype: a preliminary, prospective, 12-month follow-up clinical study.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of using platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) or connective tissue graft (CTG) for papilla reconstruction in the treatment of black triangles. A comprehensive electronic search across PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, ProQuest, and Scopus was conducted to identify the relevant randomized-controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case series. Quality assessment and meta-analysis were performed using R Statistical Software, focusing on the parameters such as papilla height, gingival index, plaque index (PI), clinical attachment level (CAL), and pocket probing depth. Registration number: CRD42022322934. From 191 initial studies, 7 were eligible for full-text review, with 4 RCTs and one retrospective study included in the meta-analysis. The analysis favored CTG over PRF in terms of black triangle height at 3-6 months postsurgery and in PI improvement at 3 months. No significant differences were found in CAL and probing pocket depth. While PRF can yield satisfactory results in papilla augmentation, CTG demonstrates superior clinical outcomes in specific parameters. Further research with more extensive clinical data is warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39188388PMC11346599What 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.