Table 1.

Comparison between the 3 APC techniques (PRP, PRF, and CGF) in dental implants.

Year	First Author	Objectives	Methods	Results (mm)	Authors’ Conclusions
			PRP
2018	Tabrizi et al. [39]	Evaluation of the impact of PRF on implant stability in the distal areas of the upper jaw.	Twenty patients requiring bilateral implants in the distal areas of the maxilla were included and divided into PRF and control groups. Implant stability was assessed by resonance frequency analysis (RFA) at 2, 4, and 6 weeks after placement.	Significant differences in the mean ISQ values were found between the groups at two weeks (p = 0.04), four weeks (p = 0.014), and six weeks (p = 0.027) after placement.	PRF may enhance implant stability during the healing period of implants placed in the posterior maxilla.
2015	Boora et al. [40]	Clinical and radiological evaluation of the effect of PRF on bone and soft tissue structures following one-stage implant placement in the maxillary aesthetic area.	The patients were divided into a PRF group and a control group. The parameters of interest were probing depth and marginal bone level around implants.	In 3 months, there was a decrease in probing depth in both groups. There were no significant changes in probing depth or bleeding in either group after 1 and 3 months. The marginal bone level changes had a statistically significantly lower mean value in the PRF group	PRF may have a beneficial effect on the peri-implant tissues.
2020	Attia et al. [41]	The long-term impact of PRP regarding clinical and radiological outcomes on the inserted implants after maxillary augmentation in the RCT.	Consideration of plaque index, probing depth, bleeding index, mobility grade, Periotest® values, and radiological bone loss.	In 36% of the results, the PRP group was superior to the control group.	The results showed no positive effect of PRP on the clinical and radiological outcomes.
2014	Kundu et al. [42]	Evaluation of the impact of PRP and different implant surface topographies on the stability of implants that were immediately loaded.	The patients were divided into two groups—with or without PRP.	PRP had no statistically significant effect on bone height changes.	The results revealed no significant effect of PRP on bone height. There was an improvement in implant stability in the PRP and square thread-form implant group.
2020	Dai et al. [43]	Clinical evaluation of the effectiveness of concentrated growth factor (CGF) in combination with mineralised collagen (MC) in guided bone regeneration (GBR).	GBR technique with simultaneous implant placement was performed on 29 patients with CGF and MC, or with MC as the sole grafting material. CBCT was examined immediately after the operation, as well as at three and six months.	Benefits to the CGF + MC group in terms of rapid relief from discomfort after the operation and reduced swelling.	Milder clinical symptoms, reduced postoperative discomfort, and increased bone regeneration were observed in the CGF + MC group.
			PRF
2021	Hartlev et al. [37]	Survival and clinical performance of implants placed in sites previously augmented with autogenous bone grafts covered by PRF membrane (PRF group) or autogenous bone graft with deproteinised bovine bone mineral and a resorbable collagen membrane (control group).	The test group included 14 placed implants, while the control group included 13. Patients were recalled for evaluation 24 months after prosthetic rehabilitation.	The radiographic peri-implant marginal bone change at follow-up was 0.26 in the PRF group and 0.68 in the control group.	Both approaches can be used for bone augmentation. There was an increased marginal bone level in the PRF group compared to the control group.
2018	Pichotano et al. [38]	Evaluation of the impact of leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) added to deproteinised bovine bone mineral (DBBM) for early implant placement after maxillary sinus augmentation.	In a split-mouth design, 12 patients were divided into a test group (DBBM + L-PRF) and a control group (DBBM as the sole grafting material). Implants were placed four months after the augmentation in the test group, and after eight months in the control group.	Primary stability was significantly higher in the control group (75.13 ± 5.69). Newly formed bone was higher in the test group (44.58% ± 13.9%).	Adding PRF to DBBM allowed early implant placement (4 months, versus 8 months of healing in the control group) with increased new bone formation.
2015	Boora et al. [40]	Effect of PRF on peri-implant tissue three months following one-stage implant placement in the maxillary aesthetic area.	Twenty patients were randomly divided into a test group (PRF) group and a control group.	There were no significant changes in probing depth or bleeding in either group after 1 and 3 months.	PRF could be considered a therapeutic s supplement in cases of one -tage, single-tooth implant placement in the aesthetic area of the maxilla.
			CGF
2016	Chen et al. [44]	Clinical and radiological results of modified osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) with CGF and simultaneous short implant placement in cases with residual bone height (RBH) of 2–4 mm in the severely atrophic maxilla.	Sixteen patients were included in the study. Twenty-five short implants were placed using the modified OSFE with CGF. Vertical bone gain (VBG) was measured using cone-beam computed tomography.	The mean residual bone height 12 months after surgery was 9.40 ± 0.47 mm.	Modified OSFE with CGF application and simultaneous short implant placement resulted in predictable clinical results for severely atrophic maxilla with RBH of 2–4 mm.
2020	Koyuncu et al. [45]	Effect of concentrated growth factor (CGF) on dental implant stability in type 2 bone using the resonance frequency analysis (RFA) device Smartpeg®.	The study included 12 patients who required dental implants in the anterior mandible. One socket was prepared conventionally (control group), while the other was covered with a CGF membrane. Implant stability was measured upon implant placement and at the first, second, and fourth weeks.	No statistically significant differences were observed between the ISQ values in either of the groups.	CGF did not benefit dental implant stability in the early healing period in type 2 bone.
2017	Pirpir et al. [46]	The effects of CGF on implant stability and osseointegration.	Twelve patients were divided into a test group (where implant bed was covered with a CGF membrane) and a control group. Implant stability was measured immediately after implant placement and at the first and fourth weeks.	The mean ISQ values were significantly higher in the test group during the period of evaluation.	Concentrated growth factors had positive effects on implant stabilisation. The ISQ measurements in week one and week four were notably higher in the study group.