ReviewOdontology2026
Assessment of periodontal regeneration with blood derivatives: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Review in Odontology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) evaluated the efficacy of autologous blood-derived products compared with open flap debridement (OFD) over time in patients with intrabony periodontal defects. Randomized clinical trials were included, and clinical attachment level (CAL) gain, probing depth (PD) reduction, and bone regeneration (BR) were assessed at 6, 9, and 12 months. Study selection followed the PRISMA-NMA guidelines, and the protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420250651074). Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2.0, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated with CINeMA. NMA was conducted using a random-effects model integrating direct and indirect comparisons, with treatment ranking based on Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) probabilities. PRF-based protocols, alone or combined with adjunctive agents, were associated with favorable trends in CAL, PD, and BR outcomes, particularly at the 9-month follow-up. Combinations of PRF with alendronate or rosuvastatin achieved high ranking probabilities and may offer additional regenerative benefits; however, these findings should be interpreted cautiously given the variability in certainty across comparisons. Although statistically significant differences were not consistently observed at 12 months, some interventions maintained favorable point estimates and ranking probabilities over time. Although sustained statistical superiority was not consistently demonstrated, some interventions showed potentially favorable clinical outcomes that may contribute to periodontal stability. Overall, PRF-based therapies showed promising results, particularly at intermediate follow-up periods; however, the magnitude and durability of these effects remain uncertain. Further well-designed long-term clinical trials are required to clarify their role as adjunctive regenerative therapies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42547721What 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.