Table 1.
Features of the reviews and meta-analyses evaluated.
| Authors | Review type | Number of papers included | Type of periodontal regeneration | Types of platelet derivative | Main results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Miron et al. [17] | Systematic review | 22 | Intrabony defects and periodontal plastic surgery | PRF | Intrabony defect: additional use of PRF resulted in reduced PD and CAL gain compared to OFD (P < 0.05). Periodontal plastic surgery: CTG produced greater width in the keratinized tissue compared to PRF. |
| Miron et al. [18] | Systematic review and meta-analysis | 27 | Intrabony defects | PRF and L-PRF | Intrabony defect: higher overall CAL with PRF (0.84 (95% CI: 0.57–1.11) greater radiographic bone fill with PRF (0.99, 95% CI: 0.64–1.34). |
| Castro et al. [19] | Systematic review and meta-analysis | 24 | Intrabony defects and periodontal plastic surgery | PRF-L | Intrabony defect: PRF-L application led to reduced PD (mean difference: 1.1 mm, P < 0.001, CI: 0.6–1.6), and CAL gain (mean difference: 1, 2 mm, P < 0.001, CI: 0.5–1.9). Amount of bone fill in mm (mean difference: 1.7 mm, P < 0.001, CI: 1.0–2.3) and bone fill % (mean difference: 46.0%, 95% CI: 33.2–58.7). Periodontal plastic surgery: PRF-L produced a reduction in recession depth (mean difference: 0.6 mm, P < 0.01, CI: 0.2–1.1). |
| Panda et al. [20] | Systematic review and meta-analysis | 15 | Intrabony defects | PRF and PRP | Intrabony defect: bone fill %: PRF and PRP significantly higher than OFD alone. PRP + bone grafting caused significant improvement in CAL. |
| Zhou et al. [21] | Systematic review and meta-analysis | 6 | Intrabony defects | PRP and PRF | Intrabony defect: PD reduction: PRP and PRF presented statistically significant differences compared to DFDBA alone. PRP: mean deviation of (0.47; 95% CI: 0.14–0.80) and PRF: 0.88 (95% CI: 0.41–1.34) CAL gain: PRF statistically significant difference compared to DFDBA alone, mean deviation 0.77 (95% CI: 0.31–1.22). Greater with PRF than amniotic membrane. Bone fill %: PRP statistically significant difference compared to DFDBA alone; mean deviation 0.71 (95% CI: 0.13–1.29). |
| Moraschini and Barboza [24] | Systematic review and meta-analysis | 7 | Periodontal plastic surgery | PRF | Periodontal plastic surgery: improvement in healing and healing parameters. Postoperative comfort especially in the donor site. |
| Najeeb et al. [22] | Systematic review | 13 | Intrabony defects | PRF | Intraosseous defect: it was not reported a statistically significant additional benefit in clinical parameters with the use of PRF. |
| Tavelli et al. [23] | Systematic review and network meta-analysis | 55 | Intrabony defects | PRP, PRF, and L-PRF | Intraosseous defect: PD reduction: PRP (−0.41; 95% CI: −0.66 to − 0.16). PRF (−0.57; 95% CI: −0.76, −0.38) CAL gain: PRP (−0.58; 95% CI: −0.91 to − 0.26) PRF (−0.82; 95% CI: −1.08, −0.56). Bone fill %: PRP (17.32; 95% CI: 6.12–28.51). PRF (29.61; 95% CI: 23.28–35.93). EMD (19.71; 95% CI: 12.78, 26.64). |
PD, probing depth; CAL, clinical attachment level; PRF, platelet-rich fibrin; PRP, platelet-rich plasma; L-PRF, leucocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin; OFD, surgical or open field therapy; DFDBA, demineralized bone matrix; CTG, connective tissue graft; EMD, emdogain.