Table 3.

Studies on L-PRF and maxillary sinus augmentation with L-PRF in combination with OTHER graft materials.

L-PRF in combination with OTHER graft materials
Patient characteristics	Experimental groups	Methodology and recorded parameters	L-PRF preparation protocol	Surgical intervention	Outcome	Reference
1 patient (1M) AGE: 59 years SA: 2	Study: DBBM + L-PRF (3:1) (R) Control: DBBM (L)	Implant stability Augmented bone height CBCT Histology ISQ	3,000 rpm 10 min	Implant placement: 4 months (L-PRF + DBBM) or 8 months (DBBM)	BR: 22.52% (Test) vs 8.95% (Ctrl) ISQ: Above 68 in all implants NFB: 975535 mm3 (test) and 2118102 mm3 (test), higher with L-PRF Less fibrous tissue in study group The addition of L-PRF might enhance the post-insertion stability of implants during implant healing. L-PRF may accelerate bone healing allowing early placement of dental implants.	(65)
24 patients (14M/10F) AGE: 4 excluded patients (from initial 28) 24 SA	Study: Allogenous freeze dried corticoncellous bone chips + L-PRF (12) Control: Allogenous bone graft (12)	Patients questionnaire with: postop. pain, swelling, sleeping, eating, phonetics, activities of daily living, and missed work days Soft tissue healing (HI)	2,700 rpm 12 min	Lateral window approach	Gradual improvements in postop. pain, swelling, sleeping, eating, phonetics, activities of daily living, and missed work days but no significative Wound healing uneventful HI was higher for test vs. control on days 7 and 14 postop. Better wound healing and patient comfort following direct sinus lifting although the difference did not reach significance.	(60)
10 patients (8M/2F) AGE: 43.5 (study) 46.2 (control) years SA: 11	Study: DBBM + L-PRF (6) Control: DBBM (5)	Radiographic evaluation Histology Histomorpho-metry	300 g 10 min	Lateral wall protocol	NB: 12.95 ± 5.33 (control) vs. 18.35 ± 5.62 (test) (NSSD) Residual bone substitute: 28.54 ± 12.01(control) vs. 19.16 ± 6.89 (test) (NSSD) Bone-to-bone substitute contact (%): 18.57 ± 5.39 (control) vs. 21.45 ± 14.57 (test) (NSSD) Neither advantage nor disadvantage in the application of PRF in combination with DBBM in SA, after 6 months.	(63)
13 patients (9M/4F) AGE: 49.92 ± 10.37 years SA:26	Study: DBBM + L-PRF (13) Control: DBBM (13)	Radiographic residual and augmented bone height	400 g 12 min	Lateral approach Implant surgery after 6 months	NB: 21.25 ±5.59% (control) vs. 21.38 ± 8.78% (test) (NSSD) Soft tissue: 45.96 ± 8.36% (control) vs. 52.67 ± 12.53% (test) (NSSD) Residual bone graft: 32.79 ± 5.89% (control) vs. 25.95 ± 9.54% (test) (NSSD) Bone-to-graft contact: 54.04 ± 8.36% (control) vs. 47.33 ± 12.33% (test) (NSSD) 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 histomorphometric evaluation	(64)
12 patients (6M/6F) AGE: 54.17 ± 6.95 years SA:24	Study: DBBM + L-PRF (12) Control: DBBM (12)	CBCT Histology Histomorpho-metry	300 g 10 min	Lateral window approach Implant placed at 4 (test) or 8 (control) months	NB: 44.58 ± 13.9% (test) vs. 30.02 ± 8.42% (control) Residual graft material: 3.59± 4.22% (test) vs. 13.75 ± 9.99% (control) Soft Tissue: 26.60 ± 11.13% (test) vs. 30.64 ± 12.46% (control) Mean graft volume: 1.68 ± 0.42 cm3 (test) vs. 1.46 ± 0.53 cm3 (control) (T1)(NSSD) and 1.10 ± 0.25 cm3 (test) vs. 0.91 ± 0.35 cm3 (SSD) ISQ: 60.90 ± 9.35 (test) vs. 75.13 ± 5.69 (control) (placement) 75.75 ± 6.14 (test) vs. 76.08 ± 5.68 (control) (loading) Adding L-PRF leads to faster bone graft maturation, and this outcome might suggest sinus augmentation with a shorter healing time before implant placement.	(62)

AOT, absence of teet; BH, bone height; M, male; F, female; ISQ, Implant stability quotient; NB, new bone; NFB, newly formed bone; NR, not reported; NSC, no statistically comparison; NSSD, no statistically significant difference; RCT, randomized clinical trial; RR, resorption Rate, SA, sinus augmentation; SD, significant difference.