Trial reportBMC oral health2026
Three-year results of a prospective, controlled clinical study evaluating treatment of intra-bony defects with PRF or EMD- a randomized control 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. It is linked to trial NCT07183631 (Evaluating Treatment of Intra-bony Defects With PRF or EMD), which is not on this 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.
Evaluating Treatment of Intra-bony Defects With PRF or EMD
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeriodontal regenerative surgery is a well-established treatment modality for intrabony periodontal defects. Enamel matrix derivative (EMD) is one of the most extensively documented biologic agents, whereas platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) has emerged as a promising autologous alternative. This prospective randomized controlled clinical study aimed to compare the long-term clinical outcomes of PRF and EMD in the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects.
methodsThirty patients with periodontitis Stage III/IV, grade B/C and at least one intrabony defect [probing pocket depth (PPD) ≥ 6 mm; intrabony component ≥ 4 mm] were randomly assigned to surgery using PRF (test group) or EMD (control group). The primary outcome was clinical attachment level (CAL) gain. Secondary outcomes included PPD reduction, gingival recession (GR), and bone sounding (BS) changes. Clinical parameters were recorded at baseline, 6 months, and 3 years postoperatively. Intergroup comparisons of mean clinical changes were performed using appropriate parametric and nonparametric statistical tests (α = 0.05).
resultsTwenty-six patients completed the 3-year follow-up. Both treatment modalities resulted in significant clinical improvements that remained stable over time. At 6 months, mean PPD reduction was 4.40 ± 2.44 mm in the PRF group and 3.53 ± 2.67 mm in the EMD group, while mean CAL gain measured 3.87 ± 2.20 mm and 2.13 ± 2.80 mm, respectively. GR increase was lower in the PRF group compared with the EMD group (0.53 ± 1.13 mm vs. 1.40 ± 1.45 mm), although the difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.079). At 3 years, mean PPD reduction was 3.69 ± 1.70 mm in the PRF group and 3.31 ± 3.45 mm in the EMD group, while CAL gain measured 3.77 ± 1.48 mm and 2.54 ± 3.62 mm, respectively. A significantly lower increase in GR was observed in the PRF group compared with the EMD group at 3 years (- 0.08 ± 0.64 mm vs. 0.77 ± 1.30 mm; p = 0.046). No statistically significant intergroup differences were detected for PPD reduction, CAL gain, or BS reduction.
conclusionsPRF and EMD provided comparable and stable long-term clinical improvements following regenerative periodontal surgery of intrabony defects. PRF may represent a reliable autologous alternative to EMD in periodontal regenerative therapy.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT07183631 retrospectively registered, 14/09/2025.
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.