SynthesisProgress in orthodontics2026
Effectiveness of different autologous platelet concentrates for orthodontic canine retraction following premolar extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Progress in orthodontics, 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
Abstract
backgroundAutologous platelet concentrates (APCs) have been increasingly used to accelerate orthodontic canine retraction; however, their effectiveness and associated clinical outcomes remain unclear.
aimTo evaluate the effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP), injectable platelet-rich fibrin (i-PRF), and leukocyte-platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) in accelerating canine retraction following premolar extraction and to summarize associated clinical outcomes including canine movement patterns, anchorage loss, and treatment-related adverse outcomes.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library up to April 24, 2026. Randomized and controlled clinical studies involving orthodontic patients undergoing canine retraction following premolar extraction and evaluating the effects of APCs were included. Random-effects meta-analyses and GRADE assessments were performed when appropriate.
results28 articles representing 26 unique studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, of which 16 studies were included in the meta-analysis. PRP demonstrated the most consistent evidence of accelerated canine retraction during the first month of treatment. i-PRF showed statistically significant effects across multiple observation periods, whereas L-PRF exhibited an earlier response pattern, with effects observed from the first week through the third month. However, substantial heterogeneity was observed in the i-PRF and L-PRF analyses. No consistent effects were identified on canine movement pattern or anchorage loss. No consistent increase in serious adverse outcomes was observed, although transient post-procedural pain and discomfort were reported following PRP and i-PRF administration. Moderate-certainty evidence supported the first-month effect of PRP, whereas all remaining findings were supported by low- to very low-certainty evidence.
conclusionsAPCs may accelerate orthodontic canine retraction following premolar extraction without clear evidence of increased adverse outcomes. The most reliable evidence currently supports a possible short-term benefit of PRP during the first month of treatment. Although i-PRF and L-PRF demonstrated potential effects over longer or earlier observation periods, the certainty of evidence remains low and substantial heterogeneity limits confidence in these findings. Further well-designed randomized controlled trials are required to determine the clinical relevance of these effects and to establish optimal application protocols. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD 420261377123).
Indexed as
Identifiers
42886327What 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.