ArticleBioinformation2025
Injectable platelet rich fibrin versus low-level laser therapy for orthodontic tooth movement: A clinical split-mouth study.
Article in Bioinformation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accelerating tooth movement during orthodontic treatment is a growing focus in clinical orthodontics. Techniques like injectable platelet rich fibrin (i-PRF) and Low-Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) have demonstrated encouraging results. Hence, 20 patients aged 18-25 years were enrolled and one side of their maxillary arch was injected with intraligamental and submucosal i-PRF and the opposite side with LLLT (980nm, 100mW). Measurements were taken using digital vernier calliper on distal surface of canine to mesial surface of second premolar monthly for four months. The mean rate of space closure on i-PRF side (right) was significantly higher (2.85 ± 0.47 mm) than LLLT side (2.05 ± 0.28 mm; p<0.001). The left side (control group) showed no significant difference (p=0.833). Thus, i-PRF is more effective than LLLT in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement. Further multicentre trials are recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.