ArticleBioinformation2026
Comparative assessment of injectable platelet-rich fibrin versus concentrated growth factor for periodontal intrabony defects.
Article in Bioinformation, 2026. 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.
- Concentrated growth factor in oral bone regeneration: A narrative review.Regenerative therapy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Periodontal intrabony defects present a therapeutic challenge and direct clinical evidence comparing injectable platelet-rich fibrin (i-PRF) and concentrated growth factor (CGF) as regenerative materials remains limited. This randomized controlled split-mouth clinical trial included 20 patients with 40 comparable three-wall intrabony defects treated by open flap debridement followed by either i-PRF or CGF, with clinical and radiographic parameters evaluated at baseline and 6 months. Both groups showed significant improvements in probing pocket depth, clinical attachment level and radiographic defect fill at 6 months (p<0.001). The CGF group demonstrated significantly greater pocket depth reduction, attachment gain and percentage of radiographic defect fill compared with the i-PRF group (p<0.05). Within the limitations of this study, both materials were effective, although CGF exhibited superior regenerative outcomes and may represent a more predictable option for periodontal intrabony defect 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.