## 4 Discussion
The fact that men's facial measurements were higher when compared to preoperative values supports this idea. [PERSON] et al. compared L-PRF with a control group using a normal clot after lower impacted third molar surgery. In their study, in which primary closures were performed, they found that there was faster healing and less pain in the first postoperative week on the side where L-PRF was used. They also reported that there was less swelling on the first and third postoperative days in the L-PRF group [16]. In another study using primary closure, [PERSON] et al. compared PRF with a normal empty extraction socket on postoperative days 1, 3, 7, and 14. They reported less pain and swelling in the L-PRF group at all postoperative assessments [31]. [PERSON] et al. compared the effect of L-PRF on periodontal pocket formation in the adjacent tooth and on new bone density and bone volume in the extraction socket of impacted lower third molars with an empty extraction socket left to heal normally. They reported that the parameters evaluated in both groups were similar after 8 weeks [32]. [PERSON] and [PERSON] compared the effect of L-PRF and A-PRF on complications after impacted lower third molar surgery. In their study, using the primary closure method, they found that A-PRF was more effective than L-PRF in alleviating pain [33]. [PERSON] et al. studied the effects of L-PRF on postoperative pain and wound healing in people undergoing extraction of lower third molars and showed that the pain was less and wound healing was faster on the side where L-PRF was used. The authors suggested that these results were related to the growth factors released by L-PRF [13]. In their study, [PERSON] et al. reported that there was no difference in pain and soft tissue healing on the side treated with L-PRF with primary closure after mandibular wisdom tooth surgery compared to the control group, contrary to the studies by [PERSON] et al., [PERSON] et al., and [PERSON] and [PERSON]. [PERSON] et al. reported that L-PRF was effective in bone healing in the extraction socket, contrary to the results of [PERSON] et al. [34]. [PERSON] et al. used L-PRF with secondary closure in lower molar extraction sockets and found that the side with L-PRF had less pain and better wound healing than the side left to heal normally [35]. In their study, [PERSON] et al. left the extraction sites to secondary healing after L-PRF following lower impacted third molar surgery. They showed that the groups treated with L-PRF had better wound healing scores than the control group at 1, 2, and 3 weeks [36]. When comparing the effects of primary and secondary closure methods in routine lower impacted wisdom tooth surgery without L-PRF, it is generally reported in the literature that the secondary closure method has fewer postoperative complications, especially pain and swelling [6; 21; 23; 24]. In contrast to our study, studies using L-PRF have compared primary and secondary closure methods with the control group. The better wound healing and lesser pain and swelling in the primary and secondary closed extraction sockets with L-PRF compared to the control groups demonstrate the positive postoperative effects of L-PRF [16; 31; 33; 35; 36]. These data are the main reason why we preferred L-PRF in this study. In this first study evaluating the primary and secondary closure methods described in the literature for submerged wisdom tooth extraction sockets using L-PRF, it was observed that the effects of both methods on trismus and swelling were similar. In terms of pain, the side left to secondary healing was less painful during the first 24 h, and this difference was statistically significant at 6 h. From day 2, VAS scores were lower on the primary closure side, although not statistically significant. At the end of the first week, there was no difference in pain, swelling, and trismus.