A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Effect of platelet-rich fibrin on microperfusion during early socket healing: a randomized controlled clinical trial. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Objectives: This 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 Methods: Sixty-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.

Results: No 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).

Conclusions: Gingival 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 Registration: All 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).

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12307558PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-025-06470-7DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

wound healing
16
gingival perfusion
12
platelet-rich fibrin
8
control group
8
group differences
8
ethical standards
8
healing
7
prf
6
perfusion
5
wound
5

Similar Publications