Purpose: To compare the outcome of tooth extractions in patients taking oral antithrombotic without reducing their dose. Four different interventions were compared within the same patient: suturing alone (control group), suturing plus a haemostatic plug, suturing plus advanced-platelet-rich fibrin (A-PRF+) plug, and suturing plus leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) plug into the socket. Materials and methods: Forty patients, taking oral antiplatelet agents, requiring the extraction of at least four non-adjacent teeth were selected for the study. After extractions the sockets were randomly allocated to suturing alone (control group), suturing plus haemostatic plug (HAEM), suturing plus advanced-platelet-rich fibrin (A-PRF+) plug, and suturing plus leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) plug into the socket without reducing the dose of oral antiplatelets according to a split-mouth design. Outcome measures were complications, time to complete each procedure, postoperative bleeding, costs of the materials, patient preference and a wound healing index recorded 1 and 2 weeks postextraction by blinded assessors. Results: Two weeks after extraction no patient dropped out and no complication was reported. The average time to complete suturing after tooth extractions was: 1.0 ± 0.00 minutes at control sites, 1.5 ± 0.41 at HAEM sites, 2.8 ± 0.61 at A-PRF+ sites, and 2.8 ± 0.56 at L-PRF sites, the difference being statistically significant between each pairwise comparison except A-PRF+ vs L-PRF. Postoperative bleeding 30 minutes after extractions was present at 8, 5, 1 and 2 sites for control, HAEM, A-PRF+ and L-PRF sites, respectively. A-PRF showed statistically significantly less bleeding compared to the control group (odds ratio = 0.1 (95% CI [0.01;0.86]; P 0.0361). In all cases bleeding was moderate in nature and not severe. One week after extractions the mean wound healing index was 1.05 ± 0.60 for control, 1.18 ± 0.59 for HAEM, 1.00 ± 0.68 for A-PRF+ and 0.95 ± 0.50 for L-PRF sites. No statistically significant difference was detected across groups (P = 0.633). Two weeks after extractions the mean wound healing index was 0.33 ± 0.53 for control, 0.43 ± 0.50 for HAEM, 0.25 ± 0.49 for A-PRF+ and 0.15 ± 0.36 for L-PRF sites. No statistically significant difference across groups was detected (P = 0.255). One week after extractions, nine patients preferred control sites, eight HAEM, ten A-PRF+, four L-PRF and nine had no preference. No statistically significant differences were detected for control sites (P = 0.6779), HAEM (P = 1.0000), A-PRF+ (P = 0.4055) and L-PRF (P = 0.1472). Two weeks after extractions five patients preferred control sites, three HAEM, eight A-PRF+, eight L-PRF and 16 had no preference. No statistically significant differences were detected for control sites (P = 0.8147), HAEM (P = 0.2363), A-PRF+ (P = 0.3488) and L-PRF (P = 0.3488). Costs without counting sutures and blood centrifuges were 0.00, 14.49, 2.44 and 2.44 Euro for control, HAEM, A-PRF+ and L-PRF sites, respectively. Conclusions: It may not be necessary to discontinue the use of oral antiplatelets in patients undergoing dental extractions and, when present, the minor statistically significant differences between procedures were not clinically relevant; therefore clinicians can use any of the tested interventions according to their preference, keeping in mind that simple suturing is sufficient and is faster and cheaper, and that A-PRF+ was associated with less postoperative bleeding when compared to suturing alone. Keywords: antiplatelet, dental extractions, haemorrhage, platelet-rich fibrin Conflict of interest statement: This trial was not funded by any institution or commercial organisation and the authors declare no conflict of interests.