The Angle orthodontist · 2026
Effects of platelet lysate on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement: a single-center, split-mouth, randomized controlled trial.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Veeramani Priyanka, Pillai Sagarika, Krishnan Prabhakar, Rajamuthu Thangabalu, Selvarajan Karthikraja
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of autologous platelet lysate (APL) on rate of orthodontic canine retraction and to measure levels of soluble receptor activator of nuclear factor κ-B ligand (sRANKL) and osteoprotegerin (OPG) in the gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) over a period of 2 months.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This split-mouth trial included 13 patients, with 28 sites randomly allocated to either the experimental or control side. After leveling and aligning, 0.6 mL of APL was injected buccally, distally, and palatally on the experimental side at T0 (baseline, day 1) and T31 (day 31). Canine retraction was performed using NiTi closed-coil springs (150 g). Digital models at T0 (baseline day 1), T30 (day 30), and T60 (day 60) were used to measure canine retraction rate. OPG and sRANKL levels from GCF samples were measured at days 0, 1, 7, 21, 30, 31, 37, 51, and 60 via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.
RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found in the rate of canine retraction at any time interval. OPG levels showed a statistically significant difference at T0 and T21; however, no significant differences were observed across any other time intervals. sRANKL remained stable throughout all intervals, except for a small late decrease at T60 on the control side.
CONCLUSIONS: APL did not significantly enhance the rate of canine retraction, and OPG and sRANKL levels showed no consistent changes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This split-mouth trial included 13 patients, with 28 sites randomly allocated to either the experimental or control side. After leveling and aligning, 0.6 mL of APL was injected buccally, distally, and palatally on the experimental side at T0 (baseline, day 1) and T31 (day 31). Canine retraction was performed using NiTi closed-coil springs (150 g). Digital models at T0 (baseline day 1), T30 (day 30), and T60 (day 60) were used to measure canine retraction rate. OPG and sRANKL levels from GCF samples were measured at days 0, 1, 7, 21, 30, 31, 37, 51, and 60 via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.
RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found in the rate of canine retraction at any time interval. OPG levels showed a statistically significant difference at T0 and T21; however, no significant differences were observed across any other time intervals. sRANKL remained stable throughout all intervals, except for a small late decrease at T60 on the control side.
CONCLUSIONS: APL did not significantly enhance the rate of canine retraction, and OPG and sRANKL levels showed no consistent changes.