ArticleBDJ open2025
Patient reported pain following tooth extraction with different autologous platelet concentrates. Systematic review.
Article in BDJ open, 2025. 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAutologous platelet concentrates (APCs) have played a significant role in regenerative dentistry, with clinical evidence suggesting its benefits over controls. Particularly, APCs could reduce postoperative pain following tooth extractions.
aimTo compare patient reported pain after tooth extractions using different autologous platelet concentrates (APCs) such as platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF).
methodA search on Pubmed, Scopus, Embase and Google Scholar databases was conducted to identify human studies using APC(s) in extraction sockets between January 2014 and June 2024. This review followed the PRISMA guidelines. The inclusion criteria involved comparative human studies ranging from evidence levels II to III (Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence). For assessing bias in the included studies, the Cochrane Risk of Bias tools were used. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to determine the quality of evidence available.
resultsThis review identified 8 studies; with 338 extraction sites in total and 1-15 days pain follow up. Four studies showed no statistically significant difference in postoperative pain reduction between PRP and PRF. One study observed no statistically significant difference between leukocyte-rich PRF (L-PRF) and titanium-prepared PRF (T-PRF). One study indicated that advanced platelet-rich fibrin (A-PRF) is superior to PRF in reducing postoperative pain on day 2 postoperatively. In addition, two studies reported that A-PRF is more effective than L-PRF on day 2. Moderate-to-high risk of bias was identified within 75% of the selected papers. GRADE score for evidence quality assessment was 'Low'.
conclusionA-PRF was favoured to reduce postoperative pain on day 2 among the investigated APCs, although the GRADE criteria rate the evidence as "Low". Future trials should directly compare A-PRF with PRF and L-PRF using high-quality randomized controlled designs.
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.