ArticleCells2026
Comparative Characterization of Leukocyte-Rich Platelet-Rich Plasma (L-PRP) and Injectable Platelet-Rich Fibrin (i-PRF): A Laboratory Study.
Article in Cells, 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
introductionOrthobiologics such as Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) and Injectable Platelet-Rich Fibrin (i-PRF) have emerged as promising tools in regenerative medicine. However, the lack of methodological standardization and the still limited comparative characterization between these products represent significant barriers to their optimized clinical application. This comparative laboratory study aimed to characterize and differentiate PRP and i-PRF, focusing on their cellular composition, obtained volume, and total Platelet-Derived Growth Factor (PDGF-BB) content. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study was conducted with 34 individuals meeting standard blood donation criteria. Peripheral blood samples were collected from all participants. PRP was obtained using a modified double-spin centrifugation protocol, whereas i-PRF was prepared using a modified low-speed centrifugation technique. Cellularity (platelet and leukocyte counts), final produced volume, and total PDGF-BB content were assessed using complete blood count analysis and an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), respectively. Statistical analysis was performed using Linear Mixed Models (LMMs).
resultsBoth protocols resulted in significant increases in platelet and leukocyte concentrations compared to baseline values. PRP showed significantly higher platelet and leukocyte concentrations compared with i-PRF, as well as markedly higher PDGF-BB levels. In contrast, i-PRF yielded a substantially greater final volume and enabled a higher absolute delivery of total leukocytes, whereas PRP delivered a greater absolute number of platelets. In exploratory analyses, female sex, the presence of comorbidities, and increased abdominal circumference were associated with variations in product volume and cellular composition. DISCUSSION: These findings indicate that PRP and i-PRF exhibit distinct biological profiles in terms of cellularity, volume, and total PDGF-BB content. Whether these laboratory differences translate into distinct clinical outcomes remains unknown. The results should therefore be viewed as hypothesis-generating: they suggest that PRP and i-PRF may not be interchangeable, and that future randomized clinical trials are needed to define product-specific indications based on the target tissue and desired biological mechanism.
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.