Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Table 2 Summary of findings table

From: Impact of platelet-rich fibrin on mandibular third molar surgery recovery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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
OutcomesIllustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)Relative effect
(95% CI)
No of Participants
(studies)
Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)
Comments
Assumed riskCorresponding risk
 Non-PRFPRF    
Pain
Visual analog scale
Follow-up: 1-7 days
The mean pain in the control groups was 7.52The 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 20.79The 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 24.35The 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 100063 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 4.29The 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
 
  1. *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI)
  2. CI Confidence interval, RR Risk ratio;
  3. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
  4. High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect
  5. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate
  6. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate
  7. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate
  8. 1 Having non-blinded study
  9. 2 The significant heterogeneity
  10. 3 No allocation concealment
  11. 4 Risk of bias
  12. 5 Pooled results included no effects