Skip to main content
. 2020 Jul 26;2020(7):CD004345. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004345.pub3

Uyanik 2015.

Study characteristics
Methods Study design: split‐mouth RCT
Conducted in: Nicosia, Cyprus
Participants Inclusion criteria: (a) the presence of bilateral, symmetrically oriented, impacted lower third molars requiring extraction for prophylactic reasons; (b) the absence of systemic diseases; (c) no chronic opioid use; (d) age > 18 years; (e) non‐smoker and non‐alcoholic; (f ) not pregnant; and (g) no allergy to penicillin or other drugs
Exclusion criteria: patients taking antibiotics for a current infection, or who had acute pericoronitis or severe periodontal disease at the time of the operation and if tooth needed sectioning during the surgery
Age: 19 to 31
Number randomised: 20 (10 female/10 male)
Number evaluated: 20 (40 wisdom teeth)
Interventions PRF or a combination of PRF and piezosurgery versus conventional rotatory osteotomy
Group A (n = 10 participants/20 teeth): traditional surgery was performed on 1 side (Group 1, n = 10); traditional surgery was performed and PRF was administered to the extracted socket on the other side of same participant (Group 2, n = 10)
Group B (n = 10 participants/20 teeth): piezosurgery was used for osteotomy and PRF was administered on 1 side (Group 3, n = 10); traditional surgery was performed on the other side of same participant (Group 4, n = 10)
Outcomes Variables assessed were pain, the number of analgesics taken, trismus, and cheek swelling at baseline and on postoperative days 1, 2, 3, and 7.
Pain VAS (0 to 10)
Trismus (measurement of interincisal distances).
Notes Sample size calculation: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Quote: "the selection of processes of which technique to use first on each participant was randomly selected."
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Comment: concealment approaches were not described, and it is unclear how the randomisation was achieved
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
patient High risk Quote: "all of the participants were informed regarding the surgical procedure, postoperative time and possible complications."
Comment: the extent to which the surgical procedure was described is unclear. All participants had PRF in 1 of their extraction sites; however, as the control and experimental extractions were done on separate occasions, unless the participant had blood samples taken on both occasions they would have guessed which side had PRF.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
assessor Unclear risk Quote: "all of the examinations were undertaken at approximately the same time of day and by the same surgeon; measurements were always obtained by the same individual, both preoperatively and postoperatively."
Comment: it is unclear if this was the operating surgeon
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes Low risk Comment: all participants included in data evaluation, no dropout
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Comment: all planned outcomes were reported
Other bias Unclear risk Comment: carry‐over effect was not evaluated