Comparative Analysis of Local Application of Titanium‐Platelet Rich Fibrin (T‐PRF) and Leukocyte‐Platelet Rich Fibrin (L‐PRF) in Bone Defect Healing: A Micro‐CT and Histopathological Study in Rabbit Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to compare the efficacy of locally applied Titanium-Platelet Rich Fibrin (T-PRF) and Leukocyte-Platelet Rich Fibrin (L-PRF) in bone defect healing using micro-CT analysis and histopathological examinations in rabbit models. Eight healthy male New Zealand rabbits, aged 4-6 months, were utilized. Circular bicortical defects (6 mm diameter) were created at three areas in each rabbit. One of the defects was chosen as the control group, which received saline solution, while T-PRF and L-PRF were applied to the defect sites in separate experimental groups. Bone regeneration was analyzed using high-resolution micro-CT and histological evaluation post-sacrifice. Statistical analysis assessed the significance of observed differences. Micro-CT analysis revealed significant differences among the groups in bone volume, trabecular thickness, trabecular number, connectivity, and connectivity density (p < 0.05). Both T-PRF and L-PRF groups exhibited superior bone parameters compared to controls, with L-PRF showing higher values. Trabecular separation and bone surface area to bone volume ratio did not differ significantly among the groups (p > 0.05). Histological examination indicated advanced healing stages in the L-PRF group, suggesting both T-PRF and L-PRF contribute to bone regeneration, with L-PRF demonstrating better effects. The study concludes that while both T-PRF and L-PRF aid in bone regeneration, L-PRF shows superior efficacy. L-PRF is recommended for bone defect healing due to its better performance in enhancing bone parameters.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".