ReviewCureus2024
Effect of Platelet-Rich Fibrin Coating on Secondary Stability of Dental Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- The Role of Biologically Active Materials in Peri-Implant Diseases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Clinical effectiveness of albumin-enriched platelet-rich fibrin (Alb-PRF) in periodontal and peri-implant regenerative surgery: a systematic review.Odontology · 2026Review
- Effects of platelet-rich fibrin combined with low-level erbium laser on soft and hard tissues and bone regeneration around implants.American journal of translational research · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A systematic review of the effect of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) on the secondary stability of delayed dental implants is lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate if PRF's application on delayed implant placement enhances secondary stability. A comprehensive search was done on Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Scopus databases to retrieve the records. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were included in the review. The outcome was secondary stability values measured in the implant stability quotient (ISQ). The meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADEpro. We included 12 trials conducted worldwide involving 456 dental implants installed. Six studies showed a high risk of bias, whereas three had a low risk of bias, and three had an unclear risk of bias. One trial did not contribute to meta-analysis. Certainty of evidence was assessed for only one comparison, which reported follow-up at 12 weeks. Implant + PRF versus Implant + no PRF: the evidence for the secondary stability of implant at four weeks (Mean difference (MD) 3.34, 95% CI 2.24 to 4.43; implants = 302; studies = 8; I2 = 0%); at six weeks (MD 2.53, 95% CI 0.85 to 4.20; implants = 146; studies = 3; I2 = 0%) and at ≥12 weeks (MD 3.37, 95% CI 0.69 to 6.06; participants = 162; studies = 4; I2 = 17%) was of low certainty. There is low certainty of evidence (≥12 weeks follow-up) for implant stability by PRF coating during installation to confirm if it can be useful for the clinicians during the delayed dental implant placement. Well-planned RCTs need to be conducted with longer follow-ups of ≥12 weeks to strengthen the evidence.
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.