ReviewClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2026
Effectiveness of platelet-rich fibrin concentrates in alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials with tomographic evaluation.
Review in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 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
purposeTo systematically review the scientific evidence on the effect of Platelet-Rich Fibrin (PRF) concentrates' application on tomographically evaluated alveolar ridge preservation in post-extraction sockets.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in seven electronic databases, and two additional bases as sources of gray literature, with no language or date restrictions. Randomized clinical trials comparing the use of PRF concentrates with placebo or no intervention were included. Tooth extractions were performed atraumatically, and alveolar ridge preservation was assessed by cone-beam computed tomography, measuring ridge width (horizontal) and height (vertical) changes. Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias with RoB 2.0 tool. Meta-analysis and GRADE assessment were also performed.
resultsA total of 2843 studies were initially identified. After duplicate removal and screening, 13 studies were included in the qualitative analysis, totaling 599 evaluated sockets. The included studies, published between 2016 and 2024, presented several methodological differences and reported controversial effects of PRF and L-PRF, compared to control groups. Individual risk of bias varied from high to some concerns mainly related to poor blinding and lack of reporting details. In meta-analysis, pooled estimates did not show statistical significance for either alveolar ridge width or height. Certainty of evidence was rated very low due to small sample size and wide confidence intervals crossing the null effect line.
conclusionBased on very low evidence, the application of PRF concentrates did not demonstrate appreciable benefits or harms for alveolar ridge preservation. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution due to data heterogeneity and bias concerns in primary studies. Thus, the evidence is insufficient to recommend its sole use as a predictable ridge preservation technique, and there is a current need on well-designed and standardized randomized clinical trials in this research field. REGISTRATION: Protocol registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42025638069).
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.