Trial reportBMC oral health2026
Clinical and radiographic efficacy of photobiomodulation, platelet-rich fibrin, and their combination for socket preservation: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe clinical and radiographic outcomes of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), photobiomodulation treatment (PBM), and their combination for socket preservation were examined in this research.
methodsThis single-blind randomized clinical trial assessed 72 individuals who had atraumatic extraction of anterior and premolar teeth. The patients were randomly allocated into four groups (n = 18): (I) PBM (660 nm, 100 mW, 2 J/cm², 10 s for soft tissue; 970 nm, 200 mW, 6 J/cm², 20 s for hard tissue in continuous-wave mode), administered once every other day for 2 weeks; (II) socket preservation with PRF; (III) PRF combined with PBM; and (IV) control (no intervention). Pain after 24, 48, and 72 h, soft tissue healing, keratinized gingiva width (KGW), and the buccolingual ridge width and height (at baseline, and 2 months post-extraction) were assessed clinically and radiographically. Data were analyzed using SPSS (alpha = 0.05).
resultsPain scores were significantly lower in the intervention groups than in the control group at all time points (P < 0.05). The PRF-PBM group showed lower pain scores than the PBM and PRF groups, although the difference was statistically significant only compared with the PBM group (P < 0.05). In the GEE analysis of soft tissue healing, PBM and PRF-PBM showed significantly better healing scores than the control group, whereas PRF alone did not differ significantly from the control group. In the ANCOVA analysis adjusted for baseline ridge width, all intervention groups showed significantly greater follow-up buccolingual ridge width than the control group, with the largest adjusted effect observed in the PRF-PBM group. No significant intergroup differences were observed for KGW or ridge height.
conclusionThe results showed that PRF-PBM may provide an early biological advantage for socket healing, particularly in reducing postoperative pain, improving early soft tissue healing, and preserving buccolingual ridge width. However, KGW and vertical ridge height were not significantly affected, and longer-term studies are needed to confirm whether these early benefits are maintained.
trial registrationThe study was registered in the clinical trial registry with the number IRCT20230222057497N1on 09.05.2023 and IRCT20230305057619N1 on 13.05.2023.
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.