MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406752762 · doi:10.2196/65137

Role of Injectable Platelet-Rich Fibrin in the Management of Soft and Hard Tissue Periodontal Regeneration in Dentistry: Protocol for a Systematic Review

2025· review· en· W4406752762 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Unnati Shirbhate, Pavan Bajaj, Mayur Wanjari, Manoj Patil

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlatelet-rich fibrinDentistryGingival recessionRegeneration (biology)MedicineHard tissueCochrane LibraryFibrinSoft tissueRandomized controlled trialSurgeryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Injectable platelet-rich fibrin (i-PRF) has the capacity to release great amounts of several growth factors, as well as to stimulate increased fibroblast migration and the expression of collagen, transforming growth factor β, and platelet-derived growth factor. Consequently, i-PRF can be used as a bioactive agent to promote periodontal tissue regeneration. OBJECTIVE: We aim to compare and evaluate the effectiveness of i-PRF in periodontal tissue regeneration. METHODS: We will conduct an electronic search in the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. Papers will be restricted to those in English and to those that are randomized controlled trials comparing PRF or any other biomaterial with i-PRF for periodontal regeneration during dental treatment. The included papers in this review and the reference lists of pertinent reviews will be manually searched. The selection of studies, data extraction, and assessment will be carried out separately by 2 reviewers using the Risk of Bias 2 tool for the included research. RESULTS: The success of i-PRF will be evaluated by comparing the mean difference in periodontal regeneration of soft and hard tissues in terms of gingival recession, probing pocket depth, clinical attachment level, bone gain, and gingival width. The combined effect size measurements and the associated 95% CIs will be estimated using a random-effects model. The synthesis or work for this systematic review started in October 2023 and will last until December 2025. CONCLUSIONS: i-PRF may play a role in dentistry and could enhance soft and hard tissue regeneration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023464250; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=464250. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/65137.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.065
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.078
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0650.078
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.020
Bibliometrics0.0150.012
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0520.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.203
GPT teacher head0.556
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicPeriodontal Regeneration and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207