Evidence Hub

Platelet-rich fibrin as a therapeutic modality for oroantral communication closure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Almutiri MK, Almutairi NA, Almutairy AS, Alwosaibai AA, Alruwaili A, Al-Mutairi FS, Almutairi RH, Alsaairi SK et al.

Frontiers in oral health, 2026

442 participants

Abstract

Background: Oroantral communication (OAC) is an abnormal connection between the oral cavity and maxillary sinus, often occurring after posterior maxillary tooth extraction. If untreated, OAC can progress to oroantral fistulas (OAFs), leading to chronic sinusitis and treatment failure. Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), an autologous biomaterial with regenerative potential, has been proposed as a therapeutic option. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PRF in the closure of OACs/OAFs.

Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered with PROSPERO. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in April 2025 across Cochrane, PubMed, Google Scholar and Web of Science. Studies were selected using PICO criteria: patients with OACs/OAFs; PRF as a standalone or adjunct intervention; comparison to conventional treatments; outcome of successful closure; and human studies published in English or Arabic. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by multiple reviewers using Cochrane RoB 2, MINORS, and MMS tools. Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager software.

Results: Nineteen studies including 442 patients were included. PRF demonstrated high closure rates, often within three weeks, with enhanced mucosal and bone healing. Minimal complications were reported. Although methodological heterogeneity and moderate-to-high risk of bias were observed, the overall findings support the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 442 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free