Table 5.

Detailed characteristics of the studies included in this review.

Author/Year	Treatment	Crucial Inclusion Criteria	Injection Site and Method of Administration	Evaluation	Results	Follow-Up Period
Agarwal and Dev Gupta (2014) [42]	PRP	Pockets ≥5 mm associated with single-rooted teeth, approximately similar radiographic angular bone defects ≥3 mm	Bottom of the pocket until the pocket was overfilled	PPD CAL PI mSBI	-Statistically significant changes in parameters in both groups from baseline to 6 months -Significantly greater clinical attachment gain (p > 0.05) in the test group -Mean CAL gain for control sites 2.40 ± 0.4 mm and for test sites 2.68 ± 0.5 mm	6 months
Albonni et al. (2021) [43]	i-PRF	Bilateral periodontal pockets (≥5 mm)	Bottom of the pocket until the pocket was overfilled	BOP PI PPD CAL	-Statistically significant decreases in PI (p = 0.001), BOP (p = 0.001 for both groups), PPD (p = 0.001 and p = 0.000 for test and control groups, respectively), and CAL (p = 0.015 and p = 0.001 for test and control groups, respectively) in both test and control groups -No statistically significant differences for inter-group comparisons in any of the clinical indices (p > 0.05).	3 months
Amin et al. (2022) [44]	PRP i-PRF	Bilateral interproximal defect, PPD ≥ 5 mm on a minimum of 2 teeth, CAL 3 mm or more than 5 mm	Gingival sulcus until the blanching and fullness of gingiva was noted	PI BI GI PPD CAL	-Statistically significant decreases in mean PPD, CAL -Higher reduction in the iPRF group followed by the PRP group then the control group (p < 0.001)	3 months
Elarif et al. (2022) [45]	i-PRF	CAL more than 4 mm, PPD more than 5 mm, Bone loss extends to the middle or apical third of affected roots.	Deepest pocket intra-sulcularly	GI PI CAL PPD Bactericidal effect against PG	-i-PRF group demonstrated a notable decline in the proportion of Pg at the conclusion of one month in comparison to the other groups -Statistically significant higher reduction inGI and gain of CAL in the aPDT group in contrast to the i-PRF group showing higher reduction inPPD	3 months
El Sharaki (2023) [46]	PRP	Bilateral periodontal pockets (≥ 5 mm) and radiographic evidence of bone loss	Periodontal pockets	PPD GI CAL PI Radiographic bone defect	-Significantly larger decrease in all clinical parameters in the Nd:YAG laser group than the PRP group (at both the 1-month and 6-month post-treatment evaluations (p < 0.001) -Reductions in PPD, GI, CAL, PI, and radiographic bony defects in Nd:YAG laser group	6 months
Khallaf et al. (2024) [47]	i-PRF	Proximal tooth surface shoving PPD ≥ 6 mm	Bottom of the pocket until the pocket was overfilled	PPD CAL BOP Immunologically—levels of matrix metalloproteinases-8	-Significant improvement in all clinical and immunological parameters in both groups -Higher improvement in all assessed parameters in the i-PRF group than the piroxicam group at each follow-up time point	3 months
Mazloum et al. (2023) [48]	Red i-PRF	At least 4 periodontal sites with a PPD ≥ 6 mm. Radiographic evidence of bone loss and CAL ≥ 5 mm	Pocket at the point of interdental space	CAL PPD BOP GI PI	-Significant improvement in PI, GI, and BOP in all groups -The highest decrease inPPD in the HA group and the i-PRF group -A notable increase in CAL in the HA group and the i-PRF group, in contrast to control group showing no improvement	3 months
Panda et al. (2020) [49]	PRGF	PPD > 5 mm and presence of bleeding on probing	Deeper pockets	PPD RAL SBI	-Statistically significant higher reduction inPPD (p = 0.007) and gain of RAL (p = 0.021) in the PRGF group -Statistically significant difference for all parameters in the intra-group comparison -Significantly lower number of sites with PPD > 4 mm that required further treatment following the six-month follow-up period in PRGF group	6 months
Rakhewar et al. (2021) [50]	i-PRF	Minimum 2 sites with PPD ≥ 5 mm	Periodontal pocket	CAL PPD BOP PI	-The mean decrease inCAL from 6.2 ± 0.63 to 5.1 ± 0.65 in the test group, while in the control group from 6.3 ± 0.94 to 5.6 ± 0.69 -The total reduction inCAL in the test group 1.1 ± 0.31 and in the control group 0.7 ± 0.34 -Statistically significant higher reduction inBOP, PI and PPD in the test group	6 weeks
Shunmuga et al.(2023) [51]	i-PRF	≥5 mm PPD with attachment loss involving at least two interproximal sites	Bottom of the pocket until the pocket was overfilled	PI MGI PPD CAL GR	-The mean decrease inPPD and CAL from 6.30 ± 1.25 and 7.48 ± 1.75 at baseline to 3.48 ± 1.34 and 4.39 ± 1.67 at six months in control sites -The mean decrease inPPD and CAL from 6.57 ± 1.56 and 7.61 ± 1.69 to 3.39 ± 1.23 and 4.26 ± 1.81 at six months in test sites (p ≤ 0.0001) -No statistically significant differences between SRP + i-PRF and SRP + saline for clinical parameters improvement	6 months
Torumtay Cin et al. (2023) [52]	i-PRF	CAL ≥ 5 mm, PPD ≥ 6 mm, radiographic bone loss extending the mid-third of the root, and ≤4 teeth lost due to periodontitis	A small portion of i-PRF was injected into a selected inner epithelial layer of the periodontal pockets. Injections were applied subgingivally, starting at the bottom of the periodontal pocket and moving coronally, targeting the midpoint of the sulcus epithelium. The remaining i-PRF was injected into the gingival sulcus.	GI PI BOP PPD CAL GR Levels of: VEGF TNF-α IL-10 GCF	-Mean pocket reduction (PD) and clinical attachment (CAL) gain significantly higher in the test group than in the control group at follow-up visits (p < 0.05) -Gingival recession (GR) values significantly lower in the test group than in the control group -VEGF and IL-10 levels significantly higher in the test group than in controls at the 14th day, while TNF-α levels significantly lower in the test group at the 7th and 14th days	6 months
Vučković et al. (2020) [53]	i-PRF	(PPD) ≥ 5 mm on contralateral sides	The use of individually formed occlusal splints with periodontal pockets through perforations at the point of interdental space enabled the splint to be held in place for a longer period.	CAL GML PPD BOP PI	-The mean reduction inCAL from 1.97 ± 0.75 (0.25–3.31) to 1.07 ± 0.44 (0.12–1.78) -In the test group, the mean value decreased from 1.81 ± 0.66 (0.42–2.96) to 1.48 ± 0.55 (0.22–2.30), in contrast to the control group from 1.97 ± 0.75 (0.25–3.31) to 1.07 ± 0.44 (0.12–1.78) -Corresponding values for GML and PPD demonstrated a statistically significant difference between the groups (p = 0.040 and p = 0.006, respectively)	3 months

SRP—Scaling and Root Planing, PRP—Platelet-Rich Plasma, i-PRF—Injectable Platelet-Rich Fibrin, PPD—Probing Pocket Depth, CAL—Clinical Attachment Level, PI—Plaque Index, mSBI—Modified Sulcus Bleeding Index, GML—Gingival Margin Level, BOP—Bleeding on Probing, GI—Gingival Index, PG—Porphyromonas gingivalis, RAL—Relative Attachment Level, SBI—Sulcus Bleeding Index, GR—Gingival Recession, MGI—Modified Gingival Index, GCF—Gingival Crevicular Fluid, VEGF—Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor, TNF-α—Tumour Necrosis Factor-α, IL—Interleukin, PRGF—Plasma Rich in Growth Factors.