Table 3.

The main findings

Authors, year	outcome measure	Main finding
Adali et al. [38]	New bone formation (%): T: 36.41% C: 35.49% Residual graft particles (%): T: 5.10% C: 5.80%	Using CGF with allografts supports the stabilization of gained vertical bone height after sinus augmentation, but further research is needed to determine the accelerating effects of CGF on new bone formation.
Amam et al. [39]	The mean bone gain(mm): CS + A-PRF: 7.96 ± 2.78 TCP + A-PRF: 7.53 ± 1.15 Mean bone height values (mm): CS + A-PRF: 11.51 ±2.44 TCP + A-PRF: 11.39 ± 0.93 CS/TCP + A-PRF: 11.45 ± 1.79	Using CS or TCP mixed with A-PRF was beneficial and safe in the two-stage maxillary sinus lifting procedure.
Anitua et al. [40]	New bone formation (%): T: 24.9 ± 4.94 C: 8.3 ± 0.14	PRGF may present a role in reducing tissue inflammation after surgery, increasing new bone formation and promoting the vascularization of bone tissue.
Batas et al. [41]	Relative volumes of bone formation(mm): T: 35.6 ± 8.26 C: 37.8 ± 3.15	PRGF as adjunct to DBB for MSFA, except from improved handling during the operation, does not appear to enhance nor interfere with bone formation inside the human sinus 6 months after MSFA, compared with the use of DBB alone.
Bolukbasi et al. [42]	Means percentages of new bone formation (%): T: 35.0 ± 8.60 C: 32.97 ± 9.71 Means percentages of biomaterial remnants (%): T: 33.05 ± 6.29 C: 33.79 ± 8.57	PRF and bovine bone graft material combination may be an alternative treatment option to the routinely used bovine bone graft material and collagen membrane combination.
Bosshardt et al. [43]	Residual graft material (%): T: 25.7 ± 8.8 C: 25.5 ± 7.6	The nanoporoushydroxyapatite-silicagelused for sinus floor elevation in humans is osteoconductive supports new bone formation comparable to most other bone substitute materials.
Cabbar et al. [18]	Residual graft: T: 23.6 ± 5.9 C: 21.9% ± 6.6%	The combination of USB and PRP does not have any effect on new bone formation and implant stabilization.
Cho et al. [44]	The increases in residual alveolar bone height(mm): 6 m: T:3.0 ± 0.8 C:3.4 ± 0.7 12 m: T:2.6 ± 1.1 C:1.7 ± 1.0	The feasibility of hydraulic transrectal sinus lifting without bone graft was confirmed and PRF might be a better filler to support the elevated sinus membrane.
Choukroun et al. [45]	Non vital bone (%): T after 4 months: 9.41% C after 8 months: 10.93%	Sinus floor augmentation with FDBA and PRF leads to a reduction of healing time prior to implant placement.
Cömert et al. [46]	Means percentages of new bone (%): A: 34.83 ± 10.12 B: 32.03 ± 6.34 C: 33.40 ± 10.43 Means percentages of graft particle (%): A: 28.98 ± 7.94 B: 32.66 ± 7.46 C: 30.39 ± 10.29	Adding P-PRP or PRF to β-TCP graft substitute was not beneficial on new bone formation and regeneration, and P-PRP plus β-TCP or PRF plus β-TCP is not superior to β-TCP alone.
de et al. [47]	Bone neoformation (%): T: 46.56 ± 12.25 C: 32.34 ± 9.49 Percentage of residual graft (%): T: 7.01 ± 8.49 C: 12.58 ± 9.19	The use of L-PRF might be an interesting alternative to use in combination with DBBM for augment the maxillary sinuses allowing the installation of appropriate length implants in shorter period of time.
Gassling et al. [48]	Mean vital bone formation (%): collagen side: 17.2 PRP side: 17.0 The mean of residual bone-substitute (%): collagen side: 17.3 PRP side: 15.9	Within the limits of the study the coverage of the lateral sinus window with two different absorbable membranes has been shown to result in a similar amount of vital bone formation and residual bone-substitute.
Jia et al. [49]	Alveolar bone height(mm): T: 13.32 ± 1.86 C: 10.92 ± 1.51 Intra-sinus bone augmentation(mm): T: 9.74 ± 2.20 C: 6.86 ± 2.40	Lateral sinus floor elevation with bone window repositioning may result in higher bone augmentation after 1 year than the traditional approach.
Kanayama et al. [50]	Endo sinus bone gains around the implant (mm): A: 4.38 ± 1.67 B: 4.00 ± 1.63	Platelet-rich fibrin promoted end sinus bone gain when used as the grafting material in the crestal approach to sinus floor elevation.
Karagah et al. [51]	ISQ: 2 m: FDBA: 56.50 ± 3.171 PRF: 59.95 ± 3.284 4 m: FDBA: 60.75 ± 2.573 PRF: 67.55 ± 1.791 6 m: FDBA: 62.65 ± 2.110 PRF: 69.85 ± 2.059	Within the limitations of this study, PRF yielded superior results compared with FDBA regarding the stability of one-stage dental implants.
Kassolis et al. [52]	Residual graft particles (%): T: 21.2 ± 8.3 C: 37.0 ± 15.7 Alveolar bone height(mm): T: 13.9 ± 2.1 C: 13.2 ± 1.3	FDBA and PRP enhances the rate of formation of bone compared with FDBA and membrane, when used in sub antral sinus augmentation.
Kiliç et al. [53]	Vertical bone height gain(mm): T: 13.19 ± 3.32 C: 11.59 ± 3.02	Both grafting materials produced sufficient vertical bone height gain for safe implant placement.
Lv et al. [54]	Peri-implant residual bone height immediately post-surgery(mm): A: 3.35 ± 0.79 B: 2.92 ± 0.63 The marginal bone loss(mm): A: 0.60 ± 0.25 B: 0.69 ± 0.35	Within the limitations of this study, PESS was associated with lower postoperative morbidity and was more tolerable than LSFE.
Molemans et al. [55]	The mean vertical bone gain (mm): A: 3.4 ± 1.2 B: 5.4 ± 1.5	L-PRF as a sole graft material during simultaneous SFE and implant placement proved to be a practical, safe, and economical sub sinus graft material, resulting in natural bone formation.
Nizam et al. [56]	Augmented bone height (mm): T: 13.60 ± 1.09 C: 13.53 ± 1.20 The percentage of newly formed bone (%): T: 21.38 ± 8.78 C: 21.25 ± 5.59 The percentage of residual bone graft (%): T: 25.95 ± 9.54 C: 32.79 ± 5.89	The addition of L-PRF in DBBM did not improve the amount of regenerated bone or the amount of the graft integrated into the newly formed bone under histological and histomorphometry evaluation.
Olgun et al. [57]	ISQ: T: 68.50 ± 8.87 C: 66.37 ± 8.31 Newly formed bone (%): T: 16.58 ± 1.05 C: 17.28 ± 2.53	The use of T-PRF alone in sinus-lifting operations has successful clinical and histomorphometry results.
Pichotano et al. [58]	Newly formed bone (%): T: 44.58 ± 13.90 C: 30.02 ± 8.42 Residual graft material (%): T: 3.59 ± 4.22 C: 13.75 ± 9.99	The addition of L-PRF to the DBBM into the maxillary sinus allowed early implant placement with increased new bone formation than DBBM alone after 8 months of healing.
Poeschl et al. [59]	Biomaterial area (%): T: 20.1 ± 13.0 C: 20.3%±12.9	Better overall resorption of algae-derived hydroxyapatite AlgOss/C Graft/Algipore and increased new bone formation when PRP was used, especially in the apical region.
Raghoebar et al. [60]	The relative area occupied with bone in the first premolar (P1) and first molar (M1) region (%; mean SD): non-PRP side: 41.1 ± 8.3 PRP side: 38.4 ± 11.3	In this study, no beneficial effect of PRP on wound healing and bone remodeling was observed.
Taschieri et al. [61]	The mean percentage of vital bone: T: 22.72 ± 9.21 C: 30.70 ± 7.89	The adjunct of pure platelet-rich plasma to deproteinized bovine bone mineral may enhance vital bone formation in the first 6 months after sinus floor augmentation.
Tatullo et al. [62]	Medullary spaces: Early protocol: Early protocol T: 70.2 C: 68.4 Intermediate protocol T: 70.0 C: 68.2 Late protocol: T: 61.4 C: 58.2 Osteoid borders: Early protocol: T: 7.01 C: 5.12 Intermediate protocol: T: 3.84 C: 3.12 Late protocol: T: 3.5 C: 2.9 Trabecular bone: Early protocol: T: 22.8 C: 26.4 Intermediate protocol: T:26.2 C: 28.7 Late protocol: T: 37.1 C: 38.9	The use of PRF and piezosurgery reduced the healing time, compared to the 150 days described in literature, favoring optimal bone regeneration.
Thor et al. [63]	The mean marginal bone level after 1 year in function(mm): T: 1.8 ± 1.1 C: 2.0 ± 0.9	A high implant survival rate and stable marginal bone conditions can be achieved after 1 year of loading in the maxilla following autogenous bone grafting whether or not PRP is used.
Thor et al. [31]	Bone-to-implant contact: T: 17 ± 13 C: 20 ± 15	PRP has a rather low regenerative capacity but may influence the early phase of bone healing.
Torres et al. [64]	The height of the augmented bone(mm): T: 10.4 ± 0.7 C: 9.4 ± 0.7	PRP can improve the osteoconductive properties of ABB by increasing the volume of new bone formed.
Zhang et al. [65]	Means percentages of new bone formation (%): T: 18.35 ± 5.62 C: 12.95 ± 5.33 Means percentages of biomaterial remnants (%): T: 19.16 ± 6.89 C: 28.54 ± 12.01	Neither an advantage nor disadvantage of the application of PRF in combination with deproteinized bovine bone mineral in sinus augmentation after a healing period of 6 months.

MSFA: maxillary sinus floor augmentation