Dental extraction protocol with plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF) inserted into the postextraction alveolus vs Standard dental extraction protocol without PRGF: MRONJ (incidence proportion)
- Population
- People with cancer treated with intravenous bisphosphonates undergoing dental extractions (at risk of MRONJ)
- Intervention
- Dental extraction protocol with plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF) inserted into the postextraction alveolus
- Comparison
- Standard dental extraction protocol without PRGF
- Outcome
- MRONJ (incidence proportion)
It is very uncertain whether dental extraction protocol with plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF)… changes MRONJ (incidence proportion) compared with standard dental extraction protocol without PRGF (very low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental extraction protocol with plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF) inserted into the postextraction alveolus vs Standard dental extraction protocol without PRGF MRONJ (incidence proportion) · People with cancer treated with intravenous bisphosphonates undergoing dental extractions (at risk of MRONJ) · 24 to 60 months It is very uncertain whether dental extraction protocol with plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF)… changes MRONJ (incidence proportion) compared with standard dental extraction protocol without PRGF (very low certainty). Interventions for managing medication‐related osteonecrosis of the jaw (2022) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 0.08 [0.00, 1.51] | 1 study · 176 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interventions for managing medication‐related osteonecrosis of the jaw 2022 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2021-06 | Not listed | Not assessed |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.