Trial reportThe Angle orthodontist2026
A three-arm parallel split-mouth randomized controlled trial comparing injectable platelet-rich fibrin and low-level laser therapy on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement and canine angulation during en-masse retraction.
Trial report in The Angle orthodontist, 2026. 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
Objectives: To compare the effects of injectable platelet-rich fibrin (I-PRF) and low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on the rate and pattern of orthodontic tooth movement, including canine angulation and rotation during en-masse retraction. Materials and Methods: A single-center, single-blind, split-mouth randomized controlled trial was conducted in 33 female patients with Class I bimaxillary protrusion. Patients were assigned into three clusters: I-PRF vs control, LLLT vs control, and I-PRF vs LLLT. After premolar extraction and initial alignment, en-masse retraction was initiated using 150g force nickel-titanium coil springs. I-PRF (0.5 mL/site) was administered at T0 and T1 (2 weeks). LLLT (650 nm, 8 J/cm2, 100 mW Ga-Al-Ar diode laser) was applied at T0, T2 (4 weeks), and T3 (8 weeks). Control sites received no intervention. Digital study models were obtained at T1 (2 weeks), T2 (4 weeks), T3 (8 weeks), and T4 (12 weeks) to measure space closure and canine rotation. canine angulation was assessed on orthopantomograms at T0 and T4. Data were analyzed using mixed-design analysis of variance. Results: Both I-PRF and LLLT significantly enhanced space closure compared to control (P < .001). LLLT showed the greatest retraction (3.02 ± 0.24 mm), followed by I-PRF (2.82 ± 0.27 mm) and control (1.99 ± 0.42 mm). Group differences were large (η2p = 0.62), and time × group interactions were moderate. Anchorage loss was higher in both intervention groups. Conclusions: Both adjuncts accelerated en-masse retraction effectively, with LLLT demonstrating a modest but sustained clinical advantage over I-PRF.
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.