Trial reportClinical oral investigations2025
Effect of platelet-rich fibrin on microperfusion during early socket healing: a randomized controlled clinical trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. 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
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate and compare the early healing of fresh alveolar sockets treated with or without platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) using laser Doppler flowmetry and tissue spectrophotometry (LDF-TS). The primary outcome was gingival perfusion; secondary outcomes included clinical wound healing (based on the Landry Wound Healing Index) and patient-reported postoperative pain. MATERIALS AND
methodsSixty-two patients requiring single tooth extraction were randomized into two groups. In the PRF group, an advanced PRF (A-PRF+) plug was placed in the socket before suturing; in the control group, only suturing was performed. Gingival perfusion was measured at four sites preoperatively and on postoperative days 3 and 10 using LDF-TS. Patients rated pain, and wound healing was clinically assessed. Twelve patients were lost to follow-up, leaving 50 for analysis.
resultsNo significant differences were found between the PRF and control group regarding pain (day 3: p = 0.654; day 10: p = 0.329) or wound healing (day 3: p = 0.178; day 10: p = 0.595). Perfusion parameters also showed no significant group differences between baseline and day 10: oxygen saturation (SO₂: p = 0.884), relative hemoglobin (rHb: p = 0.387), and blood flow (p = 0.072).
conclusionsGingival perfusion showed no significant group differences over 10 days. PRF did not significantly reduce pain or improve wound healing. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: PRF does not appear to significantly enhance healing, pain reduction, or perfusion in simple extractions. Future studies should use split-mouth designs and focus on more complex surgeries to better evaluate PRF's effects.
trial registrationAll procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study was performed according to the Consolidated Standards of Registered Trial (CONSORT) guidelines. The study was approved by the institutional Clinical Research Ethics Committee (Decision Number 23-105) and by the German Clinical Trials Register (File Number DRKS00032344, registered on October 11, 2023).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.