The application of injectable platelet-rich fibrin in regenerative dentistry: A systematic scoping review of In vitro and In vivo studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ongoing research in the dental field has begun to focus on the use of injectable platelet-rich fibrin (I-PRF) as a regenerative tool with the potential to prompt tissue regeneration. In this regard, this systematic scoping review aimed to collect, map, and appraise the in vitro and in vivo studies regarding the role of I-PRF in or soft and hard tissue regeneration in relation to oral and maxillofacial structures. A systematic electronic search of Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase databases was performed from 2000 to December 2021 using a combination of keywords. All in vitro and in vivo studies, written in English and concerning the potential role of I-PRF in regenerative dentistry were considered. In total, 18 in vitro studies, 5 animal studies, 6 case reports, and 31 clinical studies have evaluated the effect of I-PRF on oral and maxillofacial soft and hard tissue regeneration. The investigated studies verified the anti-inflammatory, anti-microbial efficacy and the positive effects of I-PRF application for wound, periodontal, bone, cartilage, and pulp regeneration, as well as acceleration in tooth movement during orthodontic treatment. Current literature approves the feasibility of I-PRF application as a promising regenerative adjunct to dental procedures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".