| Study authors | Design groups | Study design | Patients | Follow up (month) | Main results |
| Jalaluddin M,et al.2018[22] | PRP vs bone graft | RCT | 20 | 6 | Both groups enhanced periodontal regeneration, no significant difference between two groups. |
| Hanna et al. 2004 [23] | PRP/BDX vs. BDX | Split-mouth RCT | 13 | 6 | PRP/BDX showed significant PD reduction and CAL gain than that of BDX. |
| Sammartino , et al.2005 [24] | PRP | Parallel RCT | 18 | 3 | PRP showed PD reduction, CAL gain and bone formation increased. |
| Okuda et al. 2005 [25] | PRP/HA vs. Saline/ HA | Parallel RCT | 70 | 12 | PRP/HA showed significant intrabony defects filling, PD reduction and CAL gain. |
| Camargo PM，et al. 2005[26] | PRP/BPBM /GTR vs OFD | Split-mouth RCT | 28 | 6 | PRP/BPBM/GTR can improve PD reduction, CAL gain and intrabony defects filling. |
| Do ri F, et al. 2007[27] | PRP/BM/GTR vs BM/GTR | Parallel RCT | 30 | 12 | Both PRP/BM/GTR and BM/GTR resulted in significant PD reductions and CAL gains. |
| Christgau M,et al. 2006[28] | PRP/GTR/ b-TCP vs. GTR/b-TCP | Split-mouth RCT | 25 | 12 | PRP accelerated bone density gain and reduced the occurrence of membrane exposures. |
| Dori et al. 2007 [29] | PRP/BM /GTR vs. BM/GTR | Parallel RCT | 24 | 12 | Both groups for intrabony defects can improve clinical parameter significantly. |
| Ilgenli T, et al. 2007[30] | PRP/DFDB vs PRP | Parallel RCT | 22 | 18 | The DFDB/PRP exhibited more favorable gains than PRP alone. |
| Demir B, et al. 2007 [31] | PRP /BG vs. BG. | Parallel RCT | 29 | 9 | Both PRP/BG and BG are effective in intra-bony defects filling. |
| Dori F, et al. 2008 [32] | PRP/β-TCP/ e-PTFE vs. β-TCP/ e-PTFE | Parallel RCT | 28 | 12 | Both groups showed a significant PD reduction and CAL gain. |
| Piemontese et al. 2008 [33] | PRP/DFDB vs. saline / DFDB | Parallel RCT | 60 | 12 | PRP/DFDB exhibited a significantly greater clinical improvement than that of DFDB/saline. |
| Dori et al. 2008 [34] | PRP /BM / EMD vs. BM / EMD | Parallel RCT | 26 | 12 | Both groups resulted in a significant clinical improvement. |
| Harnack et al. 2009[35] | PRP /β-TCP vs β-TCP, | Split-mouth RCT | 22 | 6 | PRP/β-TCP showed no significant improvement on intrabony defects filling than that of BTCP. |
| Pradeep AR,et al. 2009[36] | PRP vs OFD. | Split-mouth RCT | 40 | 6 | PRP displayed a significant improvement to clinical parameters than that of OFD. |
| Yilmaz S,et al. 2010[37] | Smoker :PRP/ BDX vs Non-smoker: PRP/ BDX | parallel RCT | 24 | 12 | Clinical efficacy of PRP in smoking group was significantly lower than that in non-smoking group |
