Table 4 Randomized trials reporting tooth extraction of third molar
Author (year) | Study Design, Blinded (duration) | Intervention (number of surgical sites) | Effects of CGF | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Control (sites) | Test (sites) | |||
Özveri et al. (2020) [42] | Split-mouth, patient and examiner-blinded (7 days) | tooth extraction (70) | tooth extraction + CGF (70) | Decreased the risk of alveolar osteitis development after mandibular third molar surgery. |
Özveri et al. (2020) [41] | Split-mouth, patient and examiner-blinded (7 days) | tooth extraction (60) | tooth extraction + CGF (60) | Accelerated soft tissue healing and provided benefits in reducing postoperative pain, swelling and trismus on days 3 and 7. |
Torul et al. (2020) [43] | Parallel, patient and examiner-blinded (7 days) | tooth extraction (25) | T1: tooth extraction + PRF (25); T2: tooth extraction + CGF (25) | Had no beneficial effect on pain (6th hour and 1st to 7th day), swelling (2nd and 7th days), and trismus (2nd and 7th days). |
Elayah et al. (2022) [48] | Split-mouth, examiner-blinded (7 days) | tooth extraction (37) | tooth extraction + CGF (37) | Provided benefits in wound healing (7th day), swelling (1st and 3rd days), and pain (3rd and 7th days). |
Fang et al. (2022) [40] | Parallel, patient and examiner-blinded (24 weeks) | tooth extraction (58) | tooth extraction + CGF (60) | Provided benefits in reducing postoperative pain (2, 24, and 48 h), reducing incidence of alveolar osteitis and increasing bone mineral density (24 weeks), but no benefit on swelling or trismus. |
Torul et al. (2023) [52] | Parallel, examiner-blinded (7 days) | conventional treatment (25) | T1: ozone (20); T2: ozone + CGF (20) | Application of CGF and ozone together provided faster and more satisfactory management of alveolar osteitis. |