Next Article in Journal
Non-Linear Biomechanical Evaluation and Comparison in the Assessment of Three Different Piece Dental Implant Systems for the Molar Region: A Finite Element Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Tomographic Assessment of Bone Regeneration in Osteochondral Lesion Treated with Various Biomaterials in a Sheep Model Study
Previous Article in Journal
From Blood to Therapy: The Revolutionary Application of Platelets in Cancer-Targeted Drug Delivery
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JFB
Volume 16
Issue 1
10.3390/jfb16010016
jfb-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Autologous and Heterologous Minor and Major Bone Regeneration with Platelet-Derived Growth Factors

by
Gianna Dipalma
1,†,
Angelo Michele Inchingolo
1,†,
Valeria Colonna
1,
Pierluigi Marotti
1,
Claudio Carone
1,
Laura Ferrante
1,
Francesco Inchingolo
1,*,
Andrea Palermo
2,‡ and
Alessio Danilo Inchingolo
1,‡
1
Department of Interdisciplinary Medicine, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, 70121 Bari, Italy
2
Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Salento, 73100 Lecce, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
‡
These authors contributed equally to this work.
J. Funct. Biomater. 2025, 16(1), 16; https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb16010016
Submission received: 15 December 2024 / Revised: 2 January 2025 / Accepted: 7 January 2025 / Published: 9 January 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Biomaterials for Bone Tissue Engineering)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Aim: This review aims to explore the clinical applications, biological mechanisms, and potential benefits of concentrated growth factors (CGFs), autologous materials, and xenografts in bone regeneration, particularly in dental treatments such as alveolar ridge preservation, mandibular osteonecrosis, and peri-implantitis. Materials and Methods. A systematic literature search was conducted using databases like PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, with keywords such as “bone regeneration” and “CGF” from 2014 to 2024. Only English-language clinical studies involving human subjects were included. A total of 10 studies were selected for qualitative analysis. Data were processed through multiple stages, including title and abstract screening and full-text evaluation. Conclusion: The findings of the reviewed studies underscore the potential of the CGF in enhancing bone regeneration through stimulating cell proliferation, angiogenesis, and extracellular matrix mineralization. Autologous materials have also demonstrated promising results due to their biocompatibility and capacity for seamless integration with natural bone tissue. When combined with xenografts, these materials show synergistic effects in improving bone quantity and quality, which are crucial for dental implant success. Future research should focus on direct comparisons of different techniques, the optimization of protocols, and broader applications beyond dental medicine. The integration of CGFs and autologous materials into routine clinical practice represents a significant advancement in regenerative dental medicine, with the potential for improved patient outcomes and satisfaction.

1. Introduction

Bone regeneration plays a vital role in modern dental medicine, particularly in managing challenging conditions like alveolar ridge preservation, mandibular osteonecrosis, and peri-implantitis. Recent innovations, including concentrated growth factors (CGFs), autologous materials, and xenografts, have shown great promise in improving clinical outcomes [1,2,3,4,5]. These approaches not only address the inherent challenges of bone restoration but also offer exciting opportunities to enhance the quality and sustainability of dental treatments [6,7,8,9]. CGFs have gained significant attention for their biological versatility [10,11,12,13,14]. Enriched with key growth factors such as the platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), the epidermal growth factor (EGF), and the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), CGFs actively stimulate cellular proliferation, encourage the formation of new blood vessels, and promote the mineralization of the extracellular matrix [15,16,17,18,19]. These processes are essential for effective bone healing and regeneration [20,21,22,23]. Clinically, the CGF has proven highly effective in various scenarios, such as preserving alveolar ridges and managing the medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ), establishing its value as a critical tool in regenerative dentistry [24,25,26]. Similarly, the use of autologous materials like dentin granules has shown remarkable potential due to their biocompatibility and ability to integrate seamlessly with natural bone [27,28,29,30,31]. These materials not only minimize risks associated with foreign grafts but also support robust bone formation by gradually releasing growth factors and activating key cellular pathways for osteogenesis [32,33,34,35,36]. When used in combination with xenografts, these materials provide a synergistic effect, further enhancing bone regeneration [37,38,39]. The application of these biologically active materials in clinical settings is supported by extensive research demonstrating their ability to improve both bone quality and volume—two essential factors for successful dental implant placement [40,41,42,43,44]. Maintaining the structural integrity of the alveolar ridge and minimizing complications after surgery are crucial for long-term outcomes [45,46,47]. As studies continue to uncover the underlying mechanisms driving these regenerative processes, the potential for broader applications in dental medicine and other areas of regenerative healthcare becomes increasingly apparent [48,49,50,51]. This article provides a thorough review of the clinical applications, biological mechanisms, and future possibilities for CGFs, autologous materials, and associated grafting techniques. In this review, we selected CGFs, autologous materials, and xenografts as the focus of analysis due to their distinct but complementary roles in bone regeneration. The CGF, derived from the patient’s own blood, offers a biologically active solution that enhances tissue repair and regeneration through their high concentration of growth factors. On the other hand, xenografts provide a structural scaffold that mimics the mineralized matrix of human bone, supporting osteoconduction and integration into the defect site. This study aims to highlight their individual contributions and potential synergistic effects, providing a comprehensive understanding of their clinical relevance and underlying biological mechanisms. By integrating findings from recent scientific studies, we aim to highlight the transformative potential of these innovations in advancing bone regeneration and improving outcomes for patients with complex dental conditions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Processing Searches

We looked through three databases using the keywords “bone regeneration AND cgf” to locate studies that addressed this subject. Only English-language articles were considered, and the search was restricted to the previous ten years (2014–2024). Papers that met the following inclusion criteria were double-blindly selected by the reviewers: (1) publications that involve human subjects and (2) clinical research, case studies, or randomized controlled trials. Reviews and meta-analyses, research on animal models, and in vitro experiments fulfilled the exclusion criteria; English studies and papers lacking free full text were not included. The PROSPERO temporary registration code of this systematic review is ID 574282.

2.2. Data Processing

As part of the screening procedure, which comprised going over the article titles and abstracts chosen in the previous identification step, the full texts of the publications that had previously been included were read and any that did not suit the topics investigated were excluded. After the reviewers had discussed the selected papers, a third reviewer (FI) was consulted in cases of disagreement.

2.3. Quality Assessment

Using ROBINS, a method designed to evaluate the risk of bias in the findings of non-randomized studies that compare the health effects of two or more interventions, two reviewers, V.C. and C.C., evaluated the quality of the included publications. Each of the seven assessed points was given a bias level. If there was a dispute, a third reviewer, F.I., was consulted until a consensus was established.

3. Results

Three databases were searched, yielding 242 publications: Pubmed (96), Web of Science (26), and Scopus (120). After 17 duplicate entries were removed, 225 records were screened for titles and abstracts, which resulted in the removal of 160 articles. Following a full-text review, 53 papers were excluded for failing to meet inclusion criteria, while 2 articles could not be located. Ten publications in all were ultimately determined to be suitable for qualitative analysis (Table 1). The selection process is summarized in Figure 1.

3.1. Quality Assessment and Risk of Bias of Included Articles

Figure 2 reports the risk of bias across the included studies, evaluated using the ROBINS tool. Overall, the studies exhibit a generally low risk of bias, though a few areas of concern were identified. Bias due to confounding (D1): While most studies effectively managed confounding factors (e.g., Xie et al., 2023, and Isler et al., 2018) [12,53], some, like Huang et al. (2024) and Ma et al. (2023) [27,55], showed concerns due to incomplete adjustments for potential confounders. For instance, baseline characteristics were not consistently reported, which could affect the comparability between study groups. Bias arising from the measurement of exposure (D2): This domain was well-handled by most studies. However, Huang et al. (2024) [27] raised moderate concerns due to ambiguities in the methods used to assess exposure, potentially impacting reproducibility. Bias in the selection of participants into the study (D3): Participant selection was robust in most studies, as seen in Elayah et al. (2023) [8]. However, smaller sample sizes in studies like Yüce et al. (2021) [52] introduced potential selection bias, reducing the generalizability of the findings. Bias due to post-exposure interventions (D4): Most studies exhibited low risks in this domain, as protocols were consistently followed. For example, Isler et al. (2018) [53] demonstrated clear and controlled intervention procedures, minimizing variability. Bias due to missing data (D5): While missing data were generally minimal, a few studies (e.g., Minetti et al., 2023) [21] faced challenges with incomplete follow-ups, which could have influenced the reported outcomes. Bias arising from the measurement of the outcome (D6): This was a source of concern in some studies, such as Ma et al. (2023) [55], where inconsistencies in the tools or timing of outcome assessments were noted. Such issues could reduce the reliability of the findings. Bias in the selection of the reported results (D7): Most studies demonstrated transparent reporting, with Huang et al. (2024) [27] providing a clear and detailed presentation of results. However, a few studies exhibited selective reporting, as noted in the variability of outcomes presented in Yüce et al. (2021) [52].
In conclusion, while the included studies are generally of high quality, areas requiring improvement include better control of confounding variables, more rigorous outcome measurement protocols, and enhanced strategies to minimize missing data. These findings, summarized in Figure 2, underscore the need for ongoing methodological refinement to further strengthen the evidence base.

3.2. Results and Comparative Analysis

The studies included in this review provide a diverse range of insights into the clinical applications of the CGF, emphasizing both its advantages and limitations in bone regeneration. Collectively, they suggest that the CGF holds promise as a versatile autologous material that can enhance healing, reduce postoperative complications, and improve bone formation. Clinical trials, such as those by Huang et al. (2018) and Ma et al. (2023) [37,55], demonstrate consistent benefits of the CGF in terms of reducing postoperative pain and promoting better bone preservation compared to controls. Similarly, studies like Elayah et al. (2023) [8] highlight the CGF’s ability to maintain alveolar ridge dimensions more effectively than conventional treatments. However, results regarding other parameters, such as swelling and bone density, are less consistent, suggesting variability in its effectiveness depending on the clinical context. When compared to other regenerative approaches, such as collagen membranes or mixed grafts, the CGF appears to offer comparable or superior outcomes in some parameters, such as bone augmentation and reduced postoperative discomfort (Xie et al., 2023) [12]. However, studies like Isler et al. (2018) [53] indicate that in certain applications, alternative materials may achieve better results, particularly in terms of clinical attachment levels and probing depth.

3.3. Clinical Significance and Limitations

The primary advantage of the CGF lies in its autologous nature, which eliminates immunogenicity and promotes natural healing processes. This aligns with the findings of multiple studies that report improved clinical and radiographic outcomes without significant adverse effects. Nonetheless, some studies, such as Yüce et al. (2021) [52], show limitations in statistical significance, which may stem from small sample sizes or variability in patient populations. A critical limitation observed across studies is the lack of long-term follow-up data to assess the durability of CGF-mediated regeneration. Additionally, the effectiveness of CGFs can vary based on the specific application, as highlighted by mixed results in studies examining its use in socket preservation and peri-implantitis treatment.
This analysis underscores the need for further high-quality, large-scale studies to fully establish the clinical potential and limitations of CGFs in bone regeneration. While current evidence supports its benefits in certain contexts, its comparative effectiveness and long-term outcomes remain areas for further investigation.

4. Discussion

The ten scientific articles analyzed provide an in-depth perspective on the use of CGFs, autologous materials, and xenografts in bone regeneration and the treatment of complex dental conditions. These studies address critical topics such as alveolar ridge preservation, mandibular osteonecrosis, and peri-implantitis, emphasizing the importance of innovative approaches in clinical practice.

4.1. Effectiveness of CGFs

CGFs have emerged as valuable tools for bone regeneration. Due to their high concentration of growth factors, CGFs play pivotal roles in various biological processes. For instance, they contain factors like the PDGF and the EGF, which are known to stimulate the proliferation of mesenchymal and osteogenic cells [56,57,58]. This is crucial for the creation of new bone tissue and the restoration of bone function. In their split-mouth randomized controlled trial, Elayah et al. demonstrated that CGFs significantly improved alveolar ridge preservation after dental extractions [50]. Similarly, Ma et al. conducted a prospective randomized controlled study showing the beneficial impact of CGFs on ridge preservation in posterior tooth extraction sites [55]. Furthermore, Yüce et al. explored the effectiveness of CGFs in the treatment of MRONJ in osteoporosis patients, showing a significant reduction in postoperative complications [52]. Additionally, CGFs promote angiogenesis—the formation of new blood vessels—which is essential for supplying nutrients and oxygen to regenerated bone tissues [5,59,60]. Factors like the VEGF present in CGFs are instrumental in this process [61,62,63,64,65]. Lastly, CGFs facilitate extracellular matrix mineralization, a necessary step for forming healthy, functional bones. These biomolecular mechanisms underscore the importance of CGFs in bone regeneration and tissue healing [66,67,68,69,70].

4.2. Bone Quality and Quantity

Numerous studies have demonstrated that the CGF significantly improves the quality and quantity of preserved bone [71,72,73,74]. CGF treatments have been shown to reduce bone loss in dental extraction sites, maintaining bone height and volume—critical factors for the success of dental implants [75,76,77,78]. A healthy alveolar ridge is essential for implant placement, and the results suggest that CGFs contribute to this goal [79,80,81,82]. For example, Yu Xie et al. conducted a randomized controlled clinical study that highlighted the effectiveness of sticky bone combined with CGFs in horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation for anterior teeth [12]. In another study, Huang et al. compared the osteogenic effects of the CGF with acellular dermal matrix, showing the superiority of the CGF in promoting new bone formation [37]. Additionally, Huang et al. conducted a split-mouth, randomized double-blind trial showing that the CGF significantly reduced postoperative complications in impacted third molar surgeries, emphasizing its role in clinical recovery [27].

4.3. Autologous Materials

Another important focus is the use of autologous materials, such as processed tooth granules. These materials offer several advantages, including optimal biocompatibility [83,84,85]. As autologous products, they minimize the risk of rejection or adverse reactions associated with foreign materials [86]. Additionally, tooth granules exhibit a favorable particle size distribution, depending on time and equipment, crucial for ensuring proper osseointegration and promoting bone growth [87,88,89,90,91]. E. Minetti et al. explored the dimensional characteristics of Tooth Transformer® granules, emphasizing their potential as a regenerative material [21]. Furthermore, Elio Minetti et al. demonstrated in a pilot study that combining dentin granules with xenograft materials for socket preservation yielded promising results in clinical applications [54].

4.4. Biomolecular Mechanisms

The mechanisms by which CGFs and autologous materials exert their positive effects are multifaceted [92,93,94,95]. For example, CGFs release growth factors gradually, providing prolonged biological support that enhances regenerative responses at the bone site [96,97,98]. Moreover, these growth factors activate signaling pathways that promote stem cell differentiation into mature bone cells, essential for new bone formation [99,100,101]. Elio Minetti et al. further explored these mechanisms in their case series study of socket preservation using tooth grafts, providing insights into the biomolecular pathways involved [47]. Additionally, Yüce et al. showed that CGF-based treatments not only improved clinical outcomes but also reduced complications in challenging cases like MRONJ [52].

4.5. Clinical Implications

The findings of these studies have significant clinical implications. Adopting techniques that utilize CGFs and autologous materials can improve clinical outcomes in both the short and long term [102,103,104,105,106]. For instance, S. C. Isler et al. demonstrated in a 12-month randomized clinical trial that CGF-based techniques were highly effective in treating peri-implantitis compared to traditional collagen membranes [53].
The use of CGFs and autologous materials represents a promising approach to bone regeneration in dentistry [107,108,109,110,111]. These studies provide robust evidence supporting innovative techniques that can improve both the quality and quantity of preserved bone [112,113,114,115,116]. Continued research is essential to confirm these findings and explore additional clinical applications [117,118,119,120,121]. Despite the promising results, the studies presented have some limitations, including small sample sizes in pilot trials and the need for long-term follow-up to evaluate the sustainability of outcomes [122,123,124,125,126]. Larger, controlled studies are essential to validate these approaches and further explore the underlying biomolecular mechanisms [127,128,129,130,131]. Future research could focus on comparing different grafting techniques and materials to identify the optimal method for specific clinical scenarios, developing standardized protocols for preparing and applying CGFs and autologous materials and exploring the use of these techniques in other fields of regenerative medicine and various pathological conditions [132,133,134,135,136]. Integrating these innovative approaches into daily clinical practice could represent a significant advancement in dental medicine, leading to better outcomes and increased patient satisfaction [137,138,139,140].
While this review elucidates the biological mechanisms and clinical applications of concentrated growth factors (CGFs), a more comprehensive comparison of existing research findings offers valuable additional insights. For instance, Ma et al. demonstrated the efficacy of CGFs in ridge preservation, reporting significantly superior outcomes in bone volume retention when compared to the use of xenografts alone. In contrast, Elayah et al. observed no significant differences when the CGF was combined with autologous materials, suggesting that the choice of adjunctive material plays a crucial role in determining treatment outcomes.
Several factors may contribute to these observed discrepancies. Patient-specific variables, including age, systemic conditions (e.g., diabetes), and smoking habits, are well-documented determinants of bone regeneration and healing processes. Additionally, variations in CGF preparation protocols, such as differences in centrifugation speed and duration, can result in inconsistent concentrations of growth factors, thereby affecting clinical efficacy. Methodological inconsistencies, such as variability in follow-up durations and outcome assessment criteria, further complicate the ability to make direct comparisons between studies.
Finally, the current body of literature is constrained by small sample sizes and a lack of standardized reporting practices, which limit the robustness of conclusions. To overcome these challenges, standardized CGF preparation protocols and well-designed, large-scale randomized controlled trials are imperative to validate the clinical benefits and establish clearer evidence.
The continuous evolution of these technologies offers new opportunities to enhance care quality and treatment efficacy, contributing to safer and more effective clinical practice [141,142,143,144].

5. Conclusions

Bone regeneration represents a milestone in modern dental medicine, especially in addressing complex conditions such as alveolar process preservation, mandibular osteonecrosis, and peri-implantitis. Recent innovations, such as CGFs and autologous materials, offer extraordinary opportunities to improve clinical outcomes, ensuring more effective and sustainable treatments. The studies analyzed clearly demonstrate the potential of CGFs in stimulating the cell proliferation, angiogenesis, and mineralization of the extracellular matrix. These processes are crucial for successful bone regeneration. In parallel, autologous materials, such as dentin granules, emerge as biocompatible solutions that integrate seamlessly with natural bone tissue, reducing the risks associated with foreign materials. In particular, the combined efficacy of CGFs and xenografts has shown synergistic results, increasing the quantity and quality of regenerated bone tissue. This evidence is corroborated by significant improvements in the preservation of bone height and volume, which are crucial factors for the success of dental implants. However, limitations persist, including small samples and the need for longitudinal studies to confirm the long-term sustainability of these interventions. Future research should focus on direct comparisons between techniques, the optimization of material preparation protocols, and expanded applications to extra-dental pathologies. The integration of CGFs and autologous materials into daily clinical practice represents a significant advance in regenerative dental medicine. Such approaches not only improve the quality of care but also increase patient satisfaction, opening new perspectives for safe, effective, and durable treatment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.C., P.M., C.C., L.F., A.M.I., A.D.I., G.D. and L.F.; methodology, A.P., G.D., A.M.I., A.D.I. and F.I.; software, A.D.I., A.P., F.I. and G.D.; validation, A.M.I., P.M. and C.C.; formal analysis, F.I.; resources, V.C., L.F. and G.D.; data curation, C.C. and P.M.; writing—original draft preparation, L.F. and A.P.; writing—review and editing, A.D.I.; visualization, A.M.I.; supervision, F.I.; project administration, G.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

CGFconcentrated growth factor
EGFepidermal growth factor
MRONJmedication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw
PDGFplatelet-derived growth factor
VEGFvascular endothelial growth factor

References

  1. Aghamohamadi, Z.; Kadkhodazadeh, M.; Torshabi, M.; Tabatabaei, F. A Compound of Concentrated Growth Factor and Periodontal Ligament Stem Cell-Derived Conditioned Medium. Tissue Cell 2020, 65, 101373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Hasegawa, T.; Kawakita, A.; Ueda, N.; Funahara, R.; Tachibana, A.; Kobayashi, M.; Kondou, E.; Takeda, D.; Kojima, Y.; Sato, S.; et al. A Multicenter Retrospective Study of the Risk Factors Associated with Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw after Tooth Extraction in Patients Receiving Oral Bisphosphonate Therapy: Can Primary Wound Closure and a Drug Holiday Really Prevent MRONJ? Osteoporos. Int. 2017, 28, 2465–2473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Romasco, T.; Tumedei, M.; Inchingolo, F.; Pignatelli, P.; Montesani, L.; Iezzi, G.; Petrini, M.; Piattelli, A.; Di Pietro, N. A Narrative Review on the Effectiveness of Bone Regeneration Procedures with OsteoBiol® Collagenated Porcine Grafts: The Translational Research Experience over 20 Years. J. Funct. Biomater. 2022, 13, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. De Stavola, L.; Tunkel, J. A New Approach to Maintenance of Regenerated Autogenous Bone Volume: Delayed Relining with Xenograft and Resorbable Membrane. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2013, 28, 1062–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Sun, J.; Hu, Y.; Fu, Y.; Zou, D.; Lu, J.; Lyu, C. Emerging Roles of Platelet Concentrates and Platelet-Derived Extracellular Vesicles in Regenerative Periodontology and Implant Dentistry. APL Bioeng. 2022, 6, 031503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Misch, K.A.; Yi, E.S.; Sarment, D.P. Accuracy of Cone Beam Computed Tomography for Periodontal Defect Measurements. J. Periodontol. 2006, 77, 1261–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Van der Weijden, F.; Dell’Acqua, F.; Slot, D.E. Alveolar Bone Dimensional Changes of Post-Extraction Sockets in Humans: A Systematic Review. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2009, 36, 1048–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Elayah, S.A.; Younis, H.; Cui, H.; Liang, X.; Sakran, K.A.; Alkadasi, B.; Al-Moraissi, E.A.; Albadani, M.; Al-Okad, W.; Tu, J.; et al. Alveolar Ridge Preservation in Post-Extraction Sockets Using Concentrated Growth Factors: A Split-Mouth, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial. Front. Endocrinol. 2023, 14, 1163696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Siritham, A.; Powcharoen, W.; Wanichsaithong, P.; Supanchart, C. Analgesics Effect of Local Diclofenac in Third Molar Surgery: A Randomized, Controlled Trial. Clin. Oral Investig. 2023, 27, 6073–6080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Kim, Y.-K.; Kim, S.-G.; Oh, J.-S.; Jin, S.-C.; Son, J.-S.; Kim, S.-Y.; Lim, S.-Y. Analysis of the Inorganic Component of Autogenous Tooth Bone Graft Material. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2011, 11, 7442–7445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Inchingolo, F.; Inchingolo, A.M.; Latini, G.; Palmieri, G.; Di Pede, C.; Trilli, I.; Ferrante, L.; Inchingolo, A.D.; Palermo, A.; Lorusso, F.; et al. Application of Graphene Oxide in Oral Surgery: A Systematic Review. Materials 2023, 16, 6293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Xie, Y.; Qin, Y.; Wei, M.; Niu, W. Application of Sticky Bone Combined with Concentrated Growth Factor (CGF) for Horizontal Alveolar Ridge Augmentation of Anterior Teeth: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Study. BMC Oral Health 2024, 24, 431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Pang, K.-M.; Um, I.-W.; Kim, Y.-K.; Woo, J.-M.; Kim, S.-M.; Lee, J.-H. Autogenous Demineralized Dentin Matrix from Extracted Tooth for the Augmentation of Alveolar Bone Defect: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial in Comparison with Anorganic Bovine Bone. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2017, 28, 809–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Kim, Y.-K.; Kim, S.-G.; Yun, P.-Y.; Yeo, I.-S.; Jin, S.-C.; Oh, J.-S.; Kim, H.-J.; Yu, S.-K.; Lee, S.-Y.; Kim, J.-S.; et al. Autogenous Teeth Used for Bone Grafting: A Comparison with Traditional Grafting Materials. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. 2014, 117, e39–e45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Del Fabbro, M.; Gallesio, G.; Mozzati, M. Autologous Platelet Concentrates for Bisphosphonate-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw Treatment and Prevention. A Systematic Review of the Literature. Eur. J. Cancer 2015, 51, 62–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kapse, S.; Surana, S.; Satish, M.; Hussain, S.E.; Vyas, S.; Thakur, D. Autologous Platelet-Rich Fibrin: Can It Secure a Better Healing? Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. 2019, 127, 8–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Minetti, E.; Palermo, A.; Inchingolo, A.D.; Patano, A.; Viapiano, F.; Ciocia, A.M.; de Ruvo, E.; Mancini, A.; Inchingolo, F.; Sauro, S.; et al. Autologous Tooth for Bone Regeneration: Dimensional Examination of Tooth Transformer® Granules. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2023, 27, 5421–5430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Inchingolo, A.M.; Patano, A.; Di Pede, C.; Inchingolo, A.D.; Palmieri, G.; de Ruvo, E.; Campanelli, M.; Buongiorno, S.; Carpentiere, V.; Piras, F.; et al. Autologous Tooth Graft: Innovative Biomaterial for Bone Regeneration. Tooth Transformer® and the Role of Microbiota in Regenerative Dentistry. A Systematic Review. J. Funct. Biomater. 2023, 14, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Borsani, E.; Bonazza, V.; Buffoli, B.; Nocini, P.F.; Albanese, M.; Zotti, F.; Inchingolo, F.; Rezzani, R.; Rodella, L.F. Beneficial Effects of Concentrated Growth Factors and Resveratrol on Human Osteoblasts In Vitro Treated with Bisphosphonates. Biomed. Res. Int. 2018, 2018, 4597321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Inchingolo, A.D.; Malcangi, G.; Inchingolo, A.M.; Piras, F.; Settanni, V.; Garofoli, G.; Palmieri, G.; Ceci, S.; Patano, A.; De Leonardis, N.; et al. Benefits and Implications of Resveratrol Supplementation on Microbiota Modulations: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 4027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Minetti, E.; Dipalma, G.; Palermo, A.; Patano, A.; Inchingolo, A.D.; Inchingolo, A.M.; Inchingolo, F. Biomolecular Mechanisms and Case Series Study of Socket Preservation with Tooth Grafts. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 5611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Kardos, D.; Hornyák, I.; Simon, M.; Hinsenkamp, A.; Marschall, B.; Várdai, R.; Kállay-Menyhárd, A.; Pinke, B.; Mészáros, L.; Kuten, O.; et al. Biological and Mechanical Properties of Platelet-Rich Fibrin Membranes after Thermal Manipulation and Preparation in a Single-Syringe Closed System. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 3433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Schropp, L.; Wenzel, A.; Kostopoulos, L.; Karring, T. Bone Healing and Soft Tissue Contour Changes Following Single-Tooth Extraction: A Clinical and Radiographic 12-Month Prospective Study. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2003, 23, 313–323. [Google Scholar]
  24. Meijndert, L.; Raghoebar, G.M.; Schüpbach, P.; Meijer, H.J.A.; Vissink, A. Bone Quality at the Implant Site after Reconstruction of a Local Defect of the Maxillary Anterior Ridge with Chin Bone or Deproteinised Cancellous Bovine Bone. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2005, 34, 877–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Leung, Y.Y.; Yeung, A.W.K.; Ismail, I.N.; Wong, N.S.M. Bone Regeneration at the Distal Aspect of the Adjacent Second Molar after Lower Third Molar Coronectomy: A Long-Term Analysis. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2020, 49, 1360–1366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Sohn, D.-S.; Heo, J.-U.; Kwak, D.-H.; Kim, D.-E.; Kim, J.-M.; Moon, J.-W.; Lee, J.-H.; Park, I.-S. Bone Regeneration in the Maxillary Sinus Using an Autologous Fibrin-Rich Block with Concentrated Growth Factors Alone. Implant. Dent. 2011, 20, 389–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Huang, C.; Xu, Y. Can Concentrated Growth Factor Prevent Postoperative Complications of Impacted Third Molar Surgery? A Split-Mouth Randomized Double-Blind Trial. Clin. Oral Investig. 2024, 28, 234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Micko, L.; Salma, I.; Skadins, I.; Egle, K.; Salms, G.; Dubnika, A. Can Our Blood Help Ensure Antimicrobial and Anti-Inflammatory Properties in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery? Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Alshujaa, B.; Talmac, A.C.; Altindal, D.; Alsafadi, A.; Ertugrul, A.S. Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of the Use of PRF, CGF, and Autogenous Bone in the Treatment of Periodontal Intrabony Defects: Treatment of Periodontal Defect by Using Autologous Products. J. Periodontol. 2024, 95, 729–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Matarasso, S.; Iorio Siciliano, V.; Aglietta, M.; Andreuccetti, G.; Salvi, G.E. Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of a Combined Resective and Regenerative Approach in the Treatment of Peri-Implantitis: A Prospective Case Series. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2014, 25, 761–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Minamizato, T.; Koga, T.; I, T.; Nakatani, Y.; Umebayashi, M.; Sumita, Y.; Ikeda, T.; Asahina, I. Clinical Application of Autogenous Partially Demineralized Dentin Matrix Prepared Immediately after Extraction for Alveolar Bone Regeneration in Implant Dentistry: A Pilot Study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2018, 47, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Liu, Y.; Li, X.; Jiang, C.; Guo, H.; Luo, G.; Huang, Y.; Yuan, C. Clinical Applications of Concentrated Growth Factors Membrane for Sealing the Socket in Alveolar Ridge Preservation: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Int. J. Implant. Dent. 2022, 8, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Gharpure, A.S.; Bhatavadekar, N.B. Clinical Efficacy of Tooth-Bone Graft: A Systematic Review and Risk of Bias Analysis of Randomized Control Trials and Observational Studies. Implant. Dent. 2018, 27, 119–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Schwarz, F.; John, G.; Schmucker, A.; Sahm, N.; Becker, J. Combined Surgical Therapy of Advanced Peri-Implantitis Evaluating Two Methods of Surface Decontamination: A 7-Year Follow-up Observation. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2017, 44, 337–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Tanan Karaca, G.; Duygu, G.; Er, N.; Ozgun, E. Comparative Investigation of Anti-Inflammatory Effect of Platelet-Rich Fibrin after Mandibular Wisdom Tooth Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Study. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 4250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Park, S.-H.; Choi, H.; Han, J.-S.; Park, Y.-B. Comparative Study of Decalcification versus Nondecalcification for Histological Evaluation of One-Wall Periodontal Intrabony Defects in Dogs. Microsc. Res. Tech. 2015, 78, 94–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Huang, L.; Zou, R.; He, J.; Ouyang, K.; Piao, Z. Comparing Osteogenic Effects between Concentrated Growth Factors and the Acellular Dermal Matrix. Braz. Oral Res. 2018, 32, e29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Kim, T.-H.; Kim, S.-H.; Sándor, G.K.; Kim, Y.-D. Comparison of Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP), Platelet-Rich Fibrin (PRF), and Concentrated Growth Factor (CGF) in Rabbit-Skull Defect Healing. Arch. Oral Biol. 2014, 59, 550–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Shetty, L.; Gangwani, K.; Londhe, U.; Bharadwaj, S.; Bakri, M.M.H.; Alamoudi, A.; Reda, R.; Bhandi, S.; Raj, A.T.; Patil, S.; et al. Comparison of the C-Reactive Protein Level and Visual Analog Scale Scores between Piezosurgery and Rotatory Osteotomy in Mandibular Impacted Third Molar Extraction. Life 2022, 12, 923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Bozkurt Doğan, Ş.; Öngöz Dede, F.; Ballı, U.; Atalay, E.N.; Durmuşlar, M.C. Concentrated Growth Factor in the Treatment of Adjacent Multiple Gingival Recessions: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2015, 42, 868–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Qin, J.; Wang, L.; Zheng, L.; Zhou, X.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, T.; Zhou, Y. Concentrated Growth Factor Promotes Schwann Cell Migration Partly through the Integrin Β1-Mediated Activation of the Focal Adhesion Kinase Pathway. Int. J. Mol. Med. 2016, 37, 1363–1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Rochira, A.; Siculella, L.; Damiano, F.; Palermo, A.; Ferrante, F.; Carluccio, M.A.; Calabriso, N.; Giannotti, L.; Stanca, E. Concentrated Growth Factors (CGF) Induce Osteogenic Differentiation in Human Bone Marrow Stem Cells. Biology 2020, 9, 370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mauceri, R.; Panzarella, V.; Maniscalco, L.; Bedogni, A.; Licata, M.E.; Albanese, A.; Toia, F.; Cumbo, E.M.G.; Mazzola, G.; Di Fede, O.; et al. Conservative Surgical Treatment of Bisphosphonate-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw with Er,Cr:YSGG Laser and Platelet-Rich Plasma: A Longitudinal Study. Biomed. Res. Int. 2018, 2018, 3982540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Miroshnychenko, A.; Azab, M.; Ibrahim, S.; Roldan, Y.; Diaz Martinez, J.P.; Tamilselvan, D.; He, L.; Urquhart, O.; Verdugo-Paiva, F.; Tampi, M.; et al. Corticosteroids for Managing Acute Pain Subsequent to Surgical Extraction of Mandibular Third Molars: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2023, 154, 727–741.e10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bono, N.; Tarsini, P.; Candiani, G. Demineralized Dentin and Enamel Matrices as Suitable Substrates for Bone Regeneration. J. Appl. Biomater. Funct. Mater. 2017, 15, e236–e243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. de Faria Vasconcelos, K.; Evangelista, K.M.; Rodrigues, C.D.; Estrela, C.; de Sousa, T.O.; Silva, M.a.G. Detection of Periodontal Bone Loss Using Cone Beam CT and Intraoral Radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2012, 41, 64–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Minetti, E.; Palermo, A.; Malcangi, G.; Inchingolo, A.D.; Mancini, A.; Dipalma, G.; Inchingolo, F.; Patano, A.; Inchingolo, A.M. Dentin, Dentin Graft, and Bone Graft: Microscopic and Spectroscopic Analysis. J. Funct. Biomater. 2023, 14, 272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Takahashi, A.; Tsujino, T.; Yamaguchi, S.; Isobe, K.; Watanabe, T.; Kitamura, Y.; Okuda, K.; Nakata, K.; Kawase, T. Distribution of Platelets, Transforming Growth Factor-Β1, Platelet-Derived Growth Factor-BB, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor and Matrix Metalloprotease-9 in Advanced Platelet-Rich Fibrin and Concentrated Growth Factor Matrices. J. Investig. Clin. Dent. 2019, 10, e12458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Park, J.-H.; Kim, J.-W.; Kim, S.-J. Does the Addition of Bone Morphogenetic Protein 2 to Platelet-Rich Fibrin Improve Healing After Treatment for Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw? J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2017, 75, 1176–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Elayah, S.A.; Liang, X.; Sakran, K.A.; Xie, L.; Younis, H.; Alajami, A.E.; Tu, J.; Na, S. Effect of Concentrated Growth Factor (CGF) on Postoperative Sequel of Completely Impacted Lower Third Molar Extraction: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Study. BMC Oral Health 2022, 22, 368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Özveri Koyuncu, B.; Işık, G.; Özden Yüce, M.; Günbay, S.; Günbay, T. Effect of Concentrated Growth Factor (CGF) on Short-Term Clinical Outcomes after Partially Impacted Mandibular Third Molar Surgery: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Study. J. Stomatol. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2020, 121, 118–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Yüce, M.O.; Adalı, E.; Işık, G. The Effect of Concentrated Growth Factor (CGF) in the Surgical Treatment of Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw (MRONJ) in Osteoporosis Patients: A Randomized Controlled Study. Clin. Oral Investig. 2021, 25, 4529–4541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Isler, S.C.; Soysal, F.; Ceyhanlı, T.; Bakırarar, B.; Unsal, B. Regenerative Surgical Treatment of Peri-Implantitis Using Either a Collagen Membrane or Concentrated Growth Factor: A 12-Month Randomized Clinical Trial. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2018, 20, 703–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Minetti, E.; Palermo, A.; Savadori, P.; Patano, A.; Inchingolo, A.D.; Rapone, B.; Malcangi, G.; Inchingolo, F.; Dipalma, G.; Tartaglia, F.C.; et al. Socket Preservation Using Dentin Mixed with Xenograft Materials: A Pilot Study. Materials 2023, 16, 4945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Ma, F.; Lin, Y.; Sun, F.; Jiang, X.; Wei, T. The Impact of Autologous Concentrated Growth Factors on the Alveolar Ridge Preservation after Posterior Tooth Extraction: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2021, 23, 579–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Krausz, A.A.; Machtei, E.E.; Peled, M. Effects of Lower Third Molar Extraction on Attachment Level and Alveolar Bone Height of the Adjacent Second Molar. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2005, 34, 756–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Norton, M.R.; Odell, E.W.; Thompson, I.D.; Cook, R.J. Efficacy of Bovine Bone Mineral for Alveolar Augmentation: A Human Histologic Study. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2003, 14, 775–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Inchingolo, A.D.; Inchingolo, A.M.; Malcangi, G.; Avantario, P.; Azzollini, D.; Buongiorno, S.; Viapiano, F.; Campanelli, M.; Ciocia, A.M.; De Leonardis, N.; et al. Effects of Resveratrol, Curcumin and Quercetin Supplementation on Bone Metabolism-A Systematic Review. Nutrients 2022, 14, 3519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Chen, L.; Cheng, J.; Cai, Y.; Zhang, J.; Yin, X.; Luan, Q. Efficacy of Concentrated Growth Factor (CGF) in the Surgical Treatment of Oral Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. BMC Oral Health 2023, 23, 712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Baslarli, O.; Tumer, C.; Ugur, O.; Vatankulu, B. Evaluation of Osteoblastic Activity in Extraction Sockets Treated with Platelet-Rich Fibrin. Med. Oral Patol. Oral Cir. Bucal 2015, 20, e111–e116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bilginaylar, K.; Uyanik, L.O. Evaluation of the Effects of Platelet-Rich Fibrin and Piezosurgery on Outcomes after Removal of Impacted Mandibular Third Molars. Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2016, 54, 629–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Kim, S.-Y.; Kim, Y.-K.; Park, Y.-H.; Park, J.-C.; Ku, J.-K.; Um, I.-W.; Kim, J.-Y. Evaluation of the Healing Potential of Demineralized Dentin Matrix Fixed with Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 in Bone Grafts. Materials 2017, 10, 1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Passarelli, P.C.; Romeo, A.; Lopez, M.A.; De Angelis, P.; Desantis, V.; Piccirillo, G.B.; Papa, R.; Papi, P.; Pompa, G.; Moffa, A.; et al. Evaluation of the Periodontal Healing of the Second Mandibular Molar Distal Site Following Insertion of PRF in the Third Molar Post Extraction Alveolus. J. Biol. Regul. Homeost. Agents 2020, 34, 111–118. [Google Scholar]
  64. Kumar, N.; Prasad, K.; Ramanujam, L.; K, R.; Dexith, J.; Chauhan, A. Evaluation of Treatment Outcome after Impacted Mandibular Third Molar Surgery with the Use of Autologous Platelet-Rich Fibrin: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Study. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2015, 73, 1042–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Detsch, R.; Mayr, H.; Ziegler, G. Formation of Osteoclast-like Cells on HA and TCP Ceramics. Acta Biomater. 2008, 4, 139–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Umebayashi, M.; Ohba, S.; Kurogi, T.; Noda, S.; Asahina, I. Full Regeneration of Maxillary Alveolar Bone Using Autogenous Partially Demineralized Dentin Matrix and Particulate Cancellous Bone and Marrow for Implant-Supported Full Arch Rehabilitation. J. Oral Implantol. 2020, 46, 122–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Masuki, H.; Okudera, T.; Watanebe, T.; Suzuki, M.; Nishiyama, K.; Okudera, H.; Nakata, K.; Uematsu, K.; Su, C.-Y.; Kawase, T. Growth Factor and Pro-Inflammatory Cytokine Contents in Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP), Plasma Rich in Growth Factors (PRGF), Advanced Platelet-Rich Fibrin (A-PRF), and Concentrated Growth Factors (CGF). Int. J. Implant. Dent. 2016, 2, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Rodella, L.F.; Favero, G.; Boninsegna, R.; Buffoli, B.; Labanca, M.; Scarì, G.; Sacco, L.; Batani, T.; Rezzani, R. Growth Factors, CD34 Positive Cells, and Fibrin Network Analysis in Concentrated Growth Factors Fraction. Microsc. Res. Tech. 2011, 74, 772–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Elgali, I.; Omar, O.; Dahlin, C.; Thomsen, P. Guided Bone Regeneration: Materials and Biological Mechanisms Revisited. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 2017, 125, 315–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. MacBeth, N.; Trullenque-Eriksson, A.; Donos, N.; Mardas, N. Hard and Soft Tissue Changes Following Alveolar Ridge Preservation: A Systematic Review. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2017, 28, 982–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Dahlin, C.; Linde, A.; Gottlow, J.; Nyman, S. Healing of Bone Defects by Guided Tissue Regeneration. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1988, 81, 672–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Carmagnola, D.; Adriaens, P.; Berglundh, T. Healing of Human Extraction Sockets Filled with Bio-Oss. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2003, 14, 137–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Yifat, M.; Hila, E.; Avraham, H.; Inchingolo, F.; Mortellaro, C.; Peleg, O.; Mijiritsky, E. Histologic and Radiographic Characteristics of Bone Filler Under Bisphosphonates. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2019, 30, 1085–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Brugnami, F.; Then, P.R.; Moroi, H.; Leone, C.W. Histologic Evaluation of Human Extraction Sockets Treated with Demineralized Freeze-Dried Bone Allograft (DFDBA) and Cell Occlusive Membrane. J. Periodontol. 1996, 67, 821–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Persson, R.E.; Hollender, L.G.; Laurell, L.; Persson, G.R. Horizontal Alveolar Bone Loss and Vertical Bone Defects in an Adult Patient Population. J. Periodontol. 1998, 69, 348–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Urban, I.A.; Nagursky, H.; Lozada, J.L.; Nagy, K. Horizontal Ridge Augmentation with a Collagen Membrane and a Combination of Particulated Autogenous Bone and Anorganic Bovine Bone-Derived Mineral: A Prospective Case Series in 25 Patients. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2013, 33, 299–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Bessho, K.; Tanaka, N.; Matsumoto, J.; Tagawa, T.; Murata, M. Human Dentin-Matrix-Derived Bone Morphogenetic Protein. J. Dent. Res. 1991, 70, 171–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Rijal, G.; Shin, H.-I. Human Tooth-Derived Biomaterial as a Graft Substitute for Hard Tissue Regeneration. Regen. Med. 2017, 12, 263–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Wang, X.; Fok, M.R.; Pelekos, G.; Jin, L.; Tonetti, M.S. In Vitro and Ex Vivo Kinetic Release Profile of Growth Factors and Cytokines from Leucocyte- and Platelet-Rich Fibrin (L-PRF) Preparations. Cells 2022, 11, 2089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Tabatabaei, F.; Aghamohammadi, Z.; Tayebi, L. In Vitro and in Vivo Effects of Concentrated Growth Factor on Cells and Tissues. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 2020, 108, 1338–1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Mol, A.; Balasundaram, A. In Vitro Cone Beam Computed Tomography Imaging of Periodontal Bone. Dentomaxillofac. Radiol. 2008, 37, 319–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Wenisch, S.; Stahl, J.-P.; Horas, U.; Heiss, C.; Kilian, O.; Trinkaus, K.; Hild, A.; Schnettler, R. In Vivo Mechanisms of Hydroxyapatite Ceramic Degradation by Osteoclasts: Fine Structural Microscopy. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 2003, 67, 713–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Choi, Y.S.; Kim, Y.C.; Ji, S.; Choi, Y. Increased Bacterial Invasion and Differential Expression of Tight-Junction Proteins, Growth Factors, and Growth Factor Receptors in Periodontal Lesions. J. Periodontol. 2014, 85, e313–e322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Chen, Y.; Cai, Z.; Zheng, D.; Lin, P.; Cai, Y.; Hong, S.; Lai, Y.; Wu, D. Inlay Osteotome Sinus Floor Elevation with Concentrated Growth Factor Application and Simultaneous Short Implant Placement in Severely Atrophic Maxilla. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 27348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Comuzzi, L.; Tumedei, M.; Romasco, T.; Petrini, M.; Afrashtehfar, K.I.; Inchingolo, F.; Piattelli, A.; Di Pietro, N. Insertion Torque, Removal Torque, and Resonance Frequency Analysis Values of Ultrashort, Short, and Standard Dental Implants: An In Vitro Study on Polyurethane Foam Sheets. J. Funct. Biomater. 2022, 14, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Inchingolo, F.; Tatullo, M.; Marrelli, M.; Inchingolo, A.M.; Scacco, S.; Inchingolo, A.D.; Dipalma, G.; Vermesan, D.; Abbinante, A.; Cagiano, R. Trial with Platelet-Rich Fibrin and Bio-Oss Used as Grafting Materials in the Treatment of the Severe Maxillar Bone Atrophy: Clinical and Radiological Evaluations. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2010, 14, 1075–1084. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  87. Atieh, M.A.; Alsabeeha, N.H.M.; Payne, A.G.T.; Duncan, W.; Faggion, C.M.; Esposito, M. Interventions for Replacing Missing Teeth: Alveolar Ridge Preservation Techniques for Dental Implant Site Development. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2015, 2015, CD010176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Esposito, M.; Grusovin, M.G.; Worthington, H.V. Interventions for Replacing Missing Teeth: Treatment of Peri-Implantitis. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2012, 1, CD004970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. He, Y.; Chen, J.; Huang, Y.; Pan, Q.; Nie, M. Local Application of Platelet-Rich Fibrin During Lower Third Molar Extraction Improves Treatment Outcomes. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2017, 75, 2497–2506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Daly, B.J.; Sharif, M.O.; Jones, K.; Worthington, H.V.; Beattie, A. Local Interventions for the Management of Alveolar Osteitis (Dry Socket). Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2022, 9, CD006968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Saad, F.; Gleason, D.M.; Murray, R.; Tchekmedyian, S.; Venner, P.; Lacombe, L.; Chin, J.L.; Vinholes, J.J.; Goas, J.A.; Zheng, M.; et al. Long-Term Efficacy of Zoledronic Acid for the Prevention of Skeletal Complications in Patients with Metastatic Hormone-Refractory Prostate Cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2004, 96, 879–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Khoshkam, V.; Suárez-López Del Amo, F.; Monje, A.; Lin, G.-H.; Chan, H.-L.; Wang, H.-L. Long-Term Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes of Regenerative Approach for Treating Peri-Implantitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2016, 31, 1303–1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Peng, K.Y.; Tseng, Y.C.; Shen, E.C.; Chiu, S.C.; Fu, E.; Huang, Y.W. Mandibular Second Molar Periodontal Status after Third Molar Extraction. J. Periodontol. 2001, 72, 1647–1651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Sánchez Jorge, M.I.; Ocaña, R.A.; Valle Rodríguez, C.; Peyró Fernández-Montes, B.; Rico-Romano, C.; Bazal-Bonelli, S.; Sánchez-Labrador, L.; Cortés-Bretón Brinkmann, J. Mandibular Third Molar Extraction: Perceived Surgical Difficulty in Relation to Professional Training. BMC Oral Health 2023, 23, 485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Liu, X.; Li, Q.; Wang, F.; Wang, Z. Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation and Dental Implant Placement Using Dentin Matrix Protein-1 Gene-Modified Bone Marrow Stromal Cells Mixed with Deproteinized Boving Bone: A Comparative Study in Beagles. Arch. Oral Biol. 2016, 64, 102–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Mavrokokki, T.; Cheng, A.; Stein, B.; Goss, A. Nature and Frequency of Bisphosphonate-Associated Osteonecrosis of the Jaws in Australia. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2007, 65, 415–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Montemurro, N.; Pierozzi, E.; Inchingolo, A.M.; Pahwa, B.; De Carlo, A.; Palermo, A.; Scarola, R.; Dipalma, G.; Corsalini, M.; Inchingolo, A.D.; et al. New Biograft Solution, Growth Factors and Bone Regenerative Approaches in Neurosurgery, Dentistry, and Orthopedics: A Review. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2023, 27, 7653–7664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Firoozi, P.; Moreira Falci, S.G.; Kim, S.-G.; Assael, L.A. Nonpharmacological Complementary Interventions for the Management of Pain after Third Molar Surgery: An Umbrella Review of Current Meta-Analyses. Pain. Res. Manag. 2022, 2022, 1816748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Xu, Y.; Qiu, J.; Sun, Q.; Yan, S.; Wang, W.; Yang, P.; Song, A. One-Year Results Evaluating the Effects of Concentrated Growth Factors on the Healing of Intrabony Defects Treated with or without Bone Substitute in Chronic Periodontitis. Med. Sci. Monit. 2019, 25, 4384–4389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Assael, L.A. Oral Bisphosphonates as a Cause of Bisphosphonate-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaws: Clinical Findings, Assessment of Risks, and Preventive Strategies. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2009, 67, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Robinson, A.; Scully, C. Pharmacology: New Therapies and Challenges. Br. Dent. J. 2014, 217, 258–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Blair, P.; Flaumenhaft, R. Platelet Alpha-Granules: Basic Biology and Clinical Correlates. Blood Rev. 2009, 23, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Dohan, D.M.; Choukroun, J.; Diss, A.; Dohan, S.L.; Dohan, A.J.J.; Mouhyi, J.; Gogly, B. Platelet-Rich Fibrin (PRF): A Second-Generation Platelet Concentrate. Part II: Platelet-Related Biologic Features. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 2006, 101, e45–e50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Egierska, D.; Perszke, M.; Mazur, M.; Duś-Ilnicka, I. Platelet-Rich Plasma and Platelet-Rich Fibrin in Oral Surgery: A Narrative Review. Dent. Med. Probl. 2023, 60, 177–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Coviello, V.; Peluso, F.; Dehkhargani, S.Z.; Verdugo, F.; Raffaelli, L.; Manicone, P.F.; D’ Addona, A. Platelet-Rich Plasma Improves Wound Healing in Multiple Myeloma Bisphosphonate-Associated Osteonecrosis of the Jaw Patients. J. Biol. Regul. Homeost. Agents 2012, 26, 151–155. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  106. Lee, J.W.; Kwon, O.H.; Kim, T.K.; Cho, Y.K.; Choi, K.Y.; Chung, H.Y.; Cho, B.C.; Yang, J.D.; Shin, J.H. Platelet-Rich Plasma: Quantitative Assessment of Growth Factor Levels and Comparative Analysis of Activated and Inactivated Groups. Arch. Plast. Surg. 2013, 40, 530–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Varghese, M.P.; Manuel, S.; Kumar L K, S. Potential for Osseous Regeneration of Platelet-Rich Fibrin-A Comparative Study in Mandibular Third Molar Impaction Sockets. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2017, 75, 1322–1329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Hounsome, J.; Pilkington, G.; Mahon, J.; Boland, A.; Beale, S.; Kotas, E.; Renton, T.; Dickson, R. Prophylactic Removal of Impacted Mandibular Third Molars: A Systematic Review and Economic Evaluation. Health Technol. Assess. 2020, 24, 1–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Miksad, R.A.; Lai, K.-C.; Dodson, T.B.; Woo, S.-B.; Treister, N.S.; Akinyemi, O.; Bihrle, M.; Maytal, G.; August, M.; Gazelle, G.S.; et al. Quality of Life Implications of Bisphosphonate-Associated Osteonecrosis of the Jaw. Oncologist 2011, 16, 121–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Lei, L.; Yu, Y.; Han, J.; Shi, D.; Sun, W.; Zhang, D.; Chen, L. Quantification of Growth Factors in Advanced Platelet-Rich Fibrin and Concentrated Growth Factors and Their Clinical Efficacy as Adjunctive to the GTR Procedure in Periodontal Intrabony Defects. J. Periodontol. 2020, 91, 462–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Qiao, J.; An, N.; Ouyang, X. Quantification of Growth Factors in Different Platelet Concentrates. Platelets 2017, 28, 774–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Ritto, F.G.; Pimentel, T.; Canellas, J.V.S.; Junger, B.; Cruz, M.; Medeiros, P.J. Randomized Double-Blind Clinical Trial Evaluation of Bone Healing after Third Molar Surgery with the Use of Leukocyte- and Platelet-Rich Fibrin. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2019, 48, 1088–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Fukumoto, S.; Matsumoto, T. Recent Advances in the Management of Osteoporosis. F1000Res 2017, 6, 625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Larsson, L.; Decker, A.M.; Nibali, L.; Pilipchuk, S.P.; Berglundh, T.; Giannobile, W.V. Regenerative Medicine for Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases. J. Dent. Res. 2016, 95, 255–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Inchingolo, F.; Tatullo, M.; Marrelli, M.; Inchingolo, A.M.; Inchingolo, A.D.; Dipalma, G.; Flace, P.; Girolamo, F.; Tarullo, A.; Laino, L.; et al. Regenerative Surgery Performed with Platelet-Rich Plasma Used in Sinus Lift Elevation before Dental Implant Surgery: An Useful Aid in Healing and Regeneration of Bone Tissue. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2012, 16, 1222–1226. [Google Scholar]
  116. Epstein, M.S.; Ephros, H.D.; Epstein, J.B. Review of Current Literature and Implications of RANKL Inhibitors for Oral Health Care Providers. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. 2013, 116, e437–e442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Lindhe, J.; Cecchinato, D.; Donati, M.; Tomasi, C.; Liljenberg, B. Ridge Preservation with the Use of Deproteinized Bovine Bone Mineral. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2014, 25, 786–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Cardaropoli, D.; Tamagnone, L.; Roffredo, A.; Gaveglio, L.; Cardaropoli, G. Socket Preservation Using Bovine Bone Mineral and Collagen Membrane: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial with Histologic Analysis. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2012, 32, 421–430. [Google Scholar]
  119. Ramaglia, L.; Guida, A.; Iorio-Siciliano, V.; Cuozzo, A.; Blasi, A.; Sculean, A. Stage-Specific Therapeutic Strategies of Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaws: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Drug Suspension Protocol. Clin. Oral Investig. 2018, 22, 597–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Inchingolo, A.M.; Inchingolo, A.D.; Nardelli, P.; Latini, G.; Trilli, I.; Ferrante, L.; Malcangi, G.; Palermo, A.; Inchingolo, F.; Dipalma, G. Stem Cells: Present Understanding and Prospects for Regenerative Dentistry. J. Funct. Biomater. 2024, 15, 308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Ikeda, T.; Kuraguchi, J.; Kogashiwa, Y.; Yokoi, H.; Satomi, T.; Kohno, N. Successful Treatment of Bisphosphonate-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw (BRONJ) Patients with Sitafloxacin: New Strategies for the Treatment of BRONJ. Bone 2015, 73, 217–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Daugela, P.; Cicciù, M.; Saulacic, N. Surgical Regenerative Treatments for Peri-Implantitis: Meta-Analysis of Recent Findings in a Systematic Literature Review. J. Oral Maxillofac. Res. 2016, 7, e15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Vittorini Orgeas, G.; Clementini, M.; De Risi, V.; de Sanctis, M. Surgical Techniques for Alveolar Socket Preservation: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2013, 28, 1049–1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Bailey, E.; Kashbour, W.; Shah, N.; Worthington, H.V.; Renton, T.F.; Coulthard, P. Surgical Techniques for the Removal of Mandibular Wisdom Teeth. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2020, 7, CD004345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Nørholt, S.E.; Hartlev, J. Surgical Treatment of Osteonecrosis of the Jaw with the Use of Platelet-Rich Fibrin: A Prospective Study of 15 Patients. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2016, 45, 1256–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Roccuzzo, M.; Pittoni, D.; Roccuzzo, A.; Charrier, L.; Dalmasso, P. Surgical Treatment of Peri-Implantitis Intrabony Lesions by Means of Deproteinized Bovine Bone Mineral with 10% Collagen: 7-Year-Results. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2017, 28, 1577–1583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Roos-Jansåker, A.-M.; Persson, G.R.; Lindahl, C.; Renvert, S. Surgical Treatment of Peri-Implantitis Using a Bone Substitute with or without a Resorbable Membrane: A 5-Year Follow-Up. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2014, 41, 1108–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Carcuac, O.; Derks, J.; Abrahamsson, I.; Wennström, J.L.; Petzold, M.; Berglundh, T. Surgical Treatment of Peri-Implantitis: 3-Year Results from a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2017, 44, 1294–1303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Graziani, F.; D’Aiuto, F.; Gennai, S.; Petrini, M.; Nisi, M.; Cirigliano, N.; Landini, L.; Bruno, R.M.; Taddei, S.; Ghiadoni, L. Systemic Inflammation after Third Molar Removal: A Case-Control Study. J. Dent. Res. 2017, 96, 1505–1512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Qiao, J.; Duan, J.; Zhang, Y.; Chu, Y.; Sun, C. The Effect of Concentrated Growth Factors in the Treatment of Periodontal Intrabony Defects. Future Sci. OA 2016, 2, FS136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Campana, M.D.; Aliberti, A.; Acerra, A.; Sammartino, P.; Dolce, P.; Sammartino, G.; Gasparro, R. The Effectiveness and Safety of Autologous Platelet Concentrates as Hemostatic Agents after Tooth Extraction in Patients on Anticoagulant Therapy: A Systematic Review of Randomized, Controlled Trials. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 5342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Hazballa, D.; Inchingolo, A.D.; Inchingolo, A.M.; Malcangi, G.; Santacroce, L.; Minetti, E.; Di Venere, D.; Limongelli, L.; Bordea, I.R.; Scarano, A.; et al. The Effectiveness of Autologous Demineralized Tooth Graft for the Bone Ridge Preservation: A Systematic Review of the Literature. J. Biol. Regul. Homeost. Agents 2021, 35, 283–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Zhang, E.; Miramini, S.; Patel, M.; Richardson, M.; Ebeling, P.; Zhang, L. The Effects of Mechanical Instability on PDGF Mediated Inflammatory Response at Early Stage of Fracture Healing under Diabetic Condition. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 2023, 229, 107319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Inchingolo, A.M.; Gargiulo Isacco, C.; Inchingolo, A.D.; Nguyen, K.C.D.; Cantore, S.; Santacroce, L.; Scacco, S.; Cirulli, N.; Corriero, A.; Puntillo, F.; et al. The Human Microbiota Key Role in the Bone Metabolism Activity. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2023, 27, 2659–2670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Wilde, F.; Heufelder, M.; Winter, K.; Hendricks, J.; Frerich, B.; Schramm, A.; Hemprich, A. The Role of Surgical Therapy in the Management of Intravenous Bisphosphonates-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 2011, 111, 153–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Heitz-Mayfield, L.J.A.; Mombelli, A. The Therapy of Peri-Implantitis: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2014, 29, 325–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Wushou, A.; Zheng, Y.; Han, Y.; Yang, Z.-C.; Han, F.-K. The Use of Autogenous Tooth Bone Graft Powder in the Treatment of Osseous Defects after Impacted Mandibular Third Molar Extraction: A Prospective Split-Mouth Clinical Pilot Study. BMC Oral Health 2022, 22, 433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Temmerman, A.; Vandessel, J.; Castro, A.; Jacobs, R.; Teughels, W.; Pinto, N.; Quirynen, M. The Use of Leucocyte and Platelet-Rich Fibrin in Socket Management and Ridge Preservation: A Split-Mouth, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2016, 43, 990–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Lin, S.-L.; Wu, S.-L.; Tsai, C.-C.; Ko, S.-Y.; Chiang, W.-F.; Yang, J.-W. The Use of Solid-Phase Concentrated Growth Factors for Surgical Defects in the Treatment of Dysplastic Lesions of the Oral Mucosa. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2016, 74, 2549–2556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. DeLoach, L.J.; Higgins, M.S.; Caplan, A.B.; Stiff, J.L. The Visual Analog Scale in the Immediate Postoperative Period: Intrasubject Variability and Correlation with a Numeric Scale. Anesth. Analg. 1998, 86, 102–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Lohmann, C.H.; Andreacchio, D.; Köster, G.; Carnes, D.L.; Cochran, D.L.; Dean, D.D.; Boyan, B.D.; Schwartz, Z. Tissue Response and Osteoinduction of Human Bone Grafts in Vivo. Arch. Orthop. Trauma. Surg. 2001, 121, 583–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Mozzati, M.; Arata, V.; Gallesio, G. Tooth Extraction in Patients on Zoledronic Acid Therapy. Oral Oncol. 2012, 48, 817–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Kim, Y.-K.; Lee, J.; Um, I.-W.; Kim, K.-W.; Murata, M.; Akazawa, T.; Mitsugi, M. Tooth-Derived Bone Graft Material. J. Korean Assoc. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2013, 39, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Tsai, L.-L.; Huang, Y.-F.; Chang, Y.-C. Treatment of Bisphosphonate-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw with Platelet-Rich Fibrin. J. Formos. Med. Assoc. 2016, 115, 585–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jfb 16 00016 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart.
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart.
Jfb 16 00016 g001
Jfb 16 00016 g002
Figure 2. Risk of bias [8,12,17,21,27,37,52,53,54,55].
Figure 2. Risk of bias [8,12,17,21,27,37,52,53,54,55].
Jfb 16 00016 g002
Table 1. Featured research in the qualitative analysis and their characteristics.
Table 1. Featured research in the qualitative analysis and their characteristics.
AuthorsType of the StudyAim of the StudyMaterials and MethodsResults
Huang et al. (2018) [37]Split-mouth randomized double-blind clinical trialTo evaluate the effectiveness of CGF in reducing postoperative complications after impacted third molar extraction.A total of 25 patients with bilaterally impacted third molars. CGF was applied on one side, while the other side served as a
control. Pain, swelling, and bone healing were assessed using CBCT.		Significant reduction in pain on the 3rd and 7th postoperative days in CGF sites compared to controls. No significant differences in swelling or bone healing between groups.
Yüce et al. (2021) [52]Randomized Controlled TrialTo evaluate the effectiveness of concentrated growth factor (CGF) in the healing process of osteoporotic patients with MRONJA total of 28 elderly women with osteoporosis and MRONJ, divided into two groups: one treated with CGF and primary closure, the other with primary closure only. Postoperative analysis conducted over 6 months.Complete healing in 19 out of 28 patients. The CGF group showed less bone exposure and infections, but results were not statistically significant.
Isler et al. (2018) [53]A 12-month randomized clinical trialTo evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of regenerative surgical treatment for peri-implantitis using CGF or collagen membranes.A total of 52 patients with peri-implantitis were treated using bone substitutes combined with either collagen membranes or concentrated growth factors.
Clinical and radiographic evaluations were conducted at baseline, 6, and 12 months.		Both treatment methods led to significant improvements in clinical and radiographic outcomes. At 12 months, collagen membranes showed better results in probing depth and clinical attachment level.
Minetti et al. (2023) [21]Case Series StudyTo assess the effectiveness of socket preservation using autologous tooth grafts.A total of 20 socket preservation procedures with 18-month follow-up. Histological evaluation during implant placement.Significant bone regeneration with uniform structure and no inflammation. Histomorphometric analysis shows promising results; further research needed for long-term outcomes.
Minetti et al. (2023) [54]Pilot StudyTo analyze mixed graft materials (50% dentin + 50% xenograft) for socket preservation.Seven socket preservation surgeries with histological analysis at 4 and 8 months.New bone formation at 29.03% (4 months) and 34.11% (8 months). Different absorption rates: dentin 71–90%; xenograft 6–26%. Dentin resorption increases new bone formation.
Minetti et al. (2023) [17]Observational StudyTo evaluate the granule size of bone graft materials from Tooth Transformer® for osteogenesis.Laser analysis of granules produced by Tooth Transformer® device.A total of 85% of granules were 100–1000 μm, aligning with literature recommendations for osteogenesis and bone regeneration.
Ma et al. (2023) [55]Randomized Controlled TrialTo evaluate the impact of CGF on alveolar ridge preservation post-extraction.A total of 50 patients randomized to CGF or control groups; healing scores, CBCT, and computerized microtomography analyses were performed.CGF improves healing scores, reduces vertical and horizontal bone resorption, and enhances new bone formation compared to controls.
Xie et al. (2023) [12]Randomized Controlled TrialTo evaluate sticky bone combined with CGF for anterior alveolar ridge augmentation.A total of 28 patients randomized to sticky bone with CGF or saline-mixed bone powders; CBCT analysis and VAS scores.Sticky bone with CGF improves bone augmentation (72% vs. 57% volume conversion) and reduces pain (lower VAS scores).
Elayah et al. (2023) [8]Randomized Controlled TrialTo assess the efficacy of CGF in ridge preservation following lower third molar extraction.A total of 60 sites in 30 patients compared CGF-treated sockets to controls; CBCT and histological analysis.CGF-treated sockets show greater bone height, width, and density. Improved periodontal pocket reduction and bone preservation.
Huang et al. (2024) [27]Randomized, Double-Blind, Split-Mouth TrialTo evaluate the effect of concentrated growth factor (CGF) in reducing postoperative complications after mandibular third molar extractions.A total of 25 patients with bilaterally impacted third molars (50 extraction sites) were included. Each patient acted as their own control. CGF was placed in one extraction socket, while the other was sutured without CGF. Pain, swelling, and bone healing were assessed postoperatively.Significant pain reduction was observed on the 3rd and 7th postoperative days in the CGF group. No significant differences were found in facial swelling or bone healing between the CGF and control groups. No adverse effects were reported.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dipalma, G.; Inchingolo, A.M.; Colonna, V.; Marotti, P.; Carone, C.; Ferrante, L.; Inchingolo, F.; Palermo, A.; Inchingolo, A.D. Autologous and Heterologous Minor and Major Bone Regeneration with Platelet-Derived Growth Factors. J. Funct. Biomater. 2025, 16, 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb16010016

AMA Style

Dipalma G, Inchingolo AM, Colonna V, Marotti P, Carone C, Ferrante L, Inchingolo F, Palermo A, Inchingolo AD. Autologous and Heterologous Minor and Major Bone Regeneration with Platelet-Derived Growth Factors. Journal of Functional Biomaterials. 2025; 16(1):16. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb16010016

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dipalma, Gianna, Angelo Michele Inchingolo, Valeria Colonna, Pierluigi Marotti, Claudio Carone, Laura Ferrante, Francesco Inchingolo, Andrea Palermo, and Alessio Danilo Inchingolo. 2025. "Autologous and Heterologous Minor and Major Bone Regeneration with Platelet-Derived Growth Factors" Journal of Functional Biomaterials 16, no. 1: 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb16010016

APA Style

Dipalma, G., Inchingolo, A. M., Colonna, V., Marotti, P., Carone, C., Ferrante, L., Inchingolo, F., Palermo, A., & Inchingolo, A. D. (2025). Autologous and Heterologous Minor and Major Bone Regeneration with Platelet-Derived Growth Factors. Journal of Functional Biomaterials, 16(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb16010016

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop