ArticleCureus2026
Titanium-Prepared Versus Leukocyte Platelet-Rich Fibrin With Demineralized Freeze-Dried Bone Allograft in Periodontal Intrabony Defects: A Prospective Observational Study.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionPeriodontal intrabony defects represent a major challenge in regenerative therapy, owing to the significant loss of supporting bone and attachment. Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) variants, including leukocyte-PRF (L-PRF) and titanium-prepared PRF (T-PRF), are autologous second-generation concentrates that enhance healing through the sustained release of growth factors, while demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft (DFDBA) provides an osteoinductive and osteoconductive scaffold. The aim of the present study was to compare the clinical and radiographic efficacy of T-PRF + DFDBA versus L-PRF + DFDBA in the regenerative treatment of periodontal intrabony defects over six months using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and clinical parameters.
methodsThis prospective observational study included 80 intrabony defect sites in systemically healthy patients (40 sites per group). The sites were assigned to Group A (T-PRF + DFDBA) or Group B (L-PRF + DFDBA) based on clinical judgment and feasibility. The probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL), and early healing index were recorded at baseline, three months, and six months. Intrabony defect depth, crestal level, and bone fill were assessed via CBCT at baseline and six months. Data were analyzed using repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), paired t-test, and independent t-test.
resultsBoth groups showed highly significant intragroup improvements in PPD, CAL, intrabony defect depth, crestal level, and bone fill over six months (p < 0.001). Intergroup comparisons revealed no statistically significant differences in PPD (baseline: 7.82 ± 0.90 mm vs 7.77 ± 0.86 mm; 6 months: 2.86 ± 0.56 mm vs 2.95 ± 1.05 mm), CAL, early healing score (1.36 ± 0.49 vs 1.23 ± 0.42; p = 0.327), bone fill (1.73 ± 1.35 mm vs 1.75 ± 1.07 mm; p = 0.961), crestal level gain, or intrabony defect reduction at any time point (all p > 0.05).
conclusionsT-PRF + DFDBA and L-PRF + DFDBA provided comparable and clinically meaningful regenerative outcomes in periodontal intrabony defects over six months, with no evidence of superiority of one approach over the other. The dominant role of DFDBA likely accounts for the equivalence observed, supporting the interchangeable clinical use of either PRF variant as an adjunct to DFDBA for routine periodontal regeneration.
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.