PRF vs Bone Grafts for Socket Preservation: Which Better Maintains Ridge Dimensions?

There was no significant difference between PRF and the bone graft in terms of ridge height change. However, PRF still resulted in significantly greater loss of ridge width.

This distinction is clinically relevant because preservation of ridge width can be particularly important when planning future implant placement.

Interestingly, the superiority of grafting did not extend to every outcome investigated. When bone density was compared, the researchers found no significant difference between PRF and bone graft groups.

Importantly, the authors assessed the certainty of the findings using the GRADE system.

Evidence supporting the differences in ridge height and width was rated as moderate, while evidence concerning bone density was considered low certainty.

This means the results are meaningful, but they are not the final word on the subject.

Only nine studies were available for inclusion, and the authors specifically called for further research to confirm the findings.

The conclusion, therefore, should not be that PRF has no role in extraction socket management. Rather, this review addresses a much more specific question: if the clinical objective is to minimise dimensional changes in the alveolar ridge, can PRF alone provide preservation comparable to a bone graft?

Based on the currently available evidence, the answer appears to favour grafting.

For clinicians considering PRF as a substitute for graft material during alveolar ridge preservation, the findings suggest some caution—particularly when maintaining ridge width is important for future treatment. With only nine studies available, however, further research is needed before drawing definitive conclusions about the relative roles of PRF and bone grafts in socket preservation.

Socket-preservation decisions should anticipate the intended three-dimensional position and future implant placement and loading plan.