Table 2 Summary of findings table
Impact of PRF on mandibular third molar surgery recovery | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Patient or population: patients with mandibular third molar surgery recovery Settings: outpatient Intervention: PRF Comparison: Non-PRF | ||||||
Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
Non-PRF | PRF | |||||
Pain Visual analog scale Follow-up: 1-7 days | The mean pain in the control groups was 7.52 | The mean pain in the intervention groups was 0.53 standard deviations lower (1.02 to 0.05 lower) | 322 (6 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2 | ||
Swelling A flexible ruler Follow-up: 1-7 days | The mean swelling in the control groups was 20.79 | The mean swelling in the intervention groups was 0.55 standard deviations lower (1.08 to 0.01 lower) | 212 (4 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate3 | ||
Trismus Measuring the distance Follow-up: 1-7 days | The mean trismus in the control groups was 24.35 | The mean trismus in the intervention groups was 0.09 standard deviations lower (0.68 lower to 0.5 higher) | 131 (4 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low3,4,5 | ||
Alveolar osteitis Follow-up: 2-90 days | 179 per 1000 | 63 per 1000 (29 to 134) | RR 0.35 (0.16 to 0.75) | 246 (3 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,5 | |
Osteoblastic activity Follow-up: 28-90 days | The mean osteoblastic activity in the control groups was 4.29 | The mean osteoblastic activity in the intervention groups was 0.05 higher (0.44 lower to 0.55 higher) | 68 (2 studies) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,5 | ||
Soft tissue healing Follow-up: 2-14 days | The mean soft tissue healing in the intervention groups was 1.03 higher (0.32 lower to 2.38 higher) | 70 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,4 | |||