ReviewCureus2025
Platelet-Rich Fibrin as a True Bone Graft Substitute: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Its Osteogenic Potential in Dental and Maxillofacial Surgery.
Review in Cureus, 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.
- Immediate implant placement with and without platelet-rich fibrin and decalcified freeze-dried bone graft.Bioinformation · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) has gained popularity as an autologous biomaterial used to enhance bone healing. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess whether the use of PRF alone achieves comparable osteogenic outcomes to conventional bone grafts. It involved a comprehensive search of the databases PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published from 2019-2024, seeking to identify clinical studies comparing PRF alone to grafts or controls in bone regeneration procedures. Primary outcomes in the studies included histologic bone formation (%), radiographic bone gain (mm), and implant success. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) for RCTs and ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions) for non-RCTs. Meta-analysis employed the random-effects model (95% confidence intervals (CIs), and evidence certainty was graded via the GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Of 142 screened studies, 18 met the inclusion criteria (nine RCTs, five CCTs, and four observational studies), encompassing extraction sockets, sinus augmentations, and periodontal defects. In large defects, PRF alone demonstrated inferior bone volume versus grafts (MD: -12.4%, 95% CI: -15.2 to -9.6; p<0.001; I² = 32%) but reduced ridge resorption versus natural healing in sockets (MD: 1.2 mm, 95% CI: 0.8-1.6; p<0.01). Heterogeneity in PRF protocols (centrifugation speeds of 700-3000 rpm) and outcome measures was high. Overall, the certainty of evidence was low for PRF's equivalence to grafts. While PRF exhibits osteopromotive properties, current evidence does not support its use as a standalone graft substitute in major defects. PRF may serve as an adjunct or alternative in small, contained defects (e.g., socket preservation), but standardized protocols and long-term RCTs are needed to further validate its efficacy.
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.