Evidence Hub

Using injectable Platelet-Rich fibrin to improve recovery after impacted lower third molar extraction: a randomized controlled clinical trial

Angelo Aliberti, Mauro Mariniello, Marco Bergaminelli, P. Dolce, Dario Gargiulo, Gilberto Sammartino, G. Spagnuolo, Roberta Gasparro

Clinical Oral Investigations, 2025

56 participants · 15 citations

Abstract

The aim of this RCT was to clinically evaluate swelling, pain and wound healing following submucosal infiltration of injectable Platelet-Rich Fibrin (i-PRF) after extraction of impacted lower third molar. The study was designed as a double-blinded, parallel group, randomized controlled clinical trial. 56 patients were divided into 2 groups: in the control group the socket was left to heal spontaneously, while the test group was treated with submucosal infiltration of i-PRF. Swelling was measured with a flexible ruler using the diagonals joining Trago and Pogonion, Gonion and labial cleft. The swelling was calculated as the sum of these diagonals before surgery, on day 3 and 7. Pain was assessed by VAS scale until the 7th postoperative day. Surgical wound healing was evaluated by the Healing Index by Landry on 3, 7 ,14 and 21st day postosperatively. The relation between duration of intervention and total swelling was also evaluated. 56 patients were enrolled in this study (28 for the test group and 28 for the control group). Randomization resulted in groups with similar baseline characteristics. No patients were lost during the follow-up and no adverse events were noted. On day 3 the total swelling was 12.7 ± 0.92 mm for control group and 12.1 ± 0.75 mm for test group; on day 7 it was 12.3 ± 0.88 mm for control group and 11.7 ± 0.73 mm for test group. A statistically significant difference was found on day 3 (p = 0.006) and on day 7 (p = 0.018). The relation between total…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 56 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