ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2025
Will L-PRF Be the Future of Endodontic Microsurgery? A Series of Case Reports.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 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.
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
Abstract
objectivesThis case series aimed to evaluate the healing potential of apical tissues with large periapical radiolucencies (> 10 mm) after apical microsurgery with L-PRF. The secondary objectives were to evaluate L-PRF's benefits and adverse effects as well as to aid in the development of a clinical protocol. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis case series was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Case Reports in Endodontics (PRICE) 2020 guidelines. Thirteen patients with persistent endodontic infections, unresponsive to nonsurgical root canal treatment/retreatment, were treated at the Restorative and Oral Surgery Departments with endodontic microsurgery. L-PRF preparation followed Choukroun et al. (2001) and the L-PRF 2018 guidelines under the supervision of an experienced consultant. Postoperative follow-up included a phone call at 24 h to assess pain, swelling, and daily functions. Sutures were removed at 7 days, and a 6-month clinical and radiographic review was conducted. The clinical assessment included patient-reported symptoms and extraoral and intraoral examinations. Periapical radiographs were assessed for periapical healing based on Rud et al.'s (1972) radiographic criteria. Radiographs were reviewed by one clinician under standardized conditions.
resultsHistopathological analyses identified 76.9% (n = 10) radicular cysts and 23.0% (n = 3) periapical granulomas from the 13 cases. At the 6-month review, 76.9% (n = 10) showed incomplete healing, 15.4% (n = 2) demonstrated complete healing, and 7.7% (n = 1) had incomplete healing at 4 months. All patients remained asymptomatic with no reported complaints. Radiographic assessments showed a significant reduction in the size of periapical radiolucency in all cases. At 24 h, 69.2% (n = 9) reported no pain, while mild pain was noted in 15.4% (n = 2). Swelling was observed in 69.2% (n = 9) and absent in 15.4% (n = 2), with missing records for 15.4% (n = 2).
conclusionL-PRF appears beneficial in endodontic microsurgery. However, larger, low-bias studies with extended follow-up periods are needed for definitive conclusions on its application.
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.