Question · asked by 1 review
Plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF) vs Alvogyl: Exposed bone (present versus absent)
- Population
- Adults (>18 years) with established dry socket following permanent tooth extraction
- Intervention
- Plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF)
- Comparison
- Alvogyl
- Outcome
- Exposed bone (present versus absent)
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF) vs Alvogyl Exposed bone (present versus absent) · Adults (>18 years) with established dry socket following permanent tooth extraction · Day 7 (also day 3) Local interventions for the management of alveolar osteitis (dry socket) (2022) · Cochrane All outcomes | PRGF versus Alvogyl (King 2018), exposed bone (% patients): day 3 PRGF 9.1% vs Alvogyl 9.1%; day 7 PRGF 0% vs Alvogyl 22.7% (P<0.05 at day 7) | 1 study · 44 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Local interventions for the management of alveolar osteitis (dry socket) 2022 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2021-09 | 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.