Effectiveness of different autologous platelet concentrates for orthodontic canine retraction following premolar extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Xiaoya Wang, Yuzhen Li, Jiawen Shao et al.
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed platelet-rich plasma (PRP), injectable platelet-rich fibrin (i-PRF), and leukocyte-platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) for accelerating orthodontic canine retraction after premolar extraction. It included 28 articles representing 26 studies in the qualitative synthesis, with 16 studies contributing to meta-analysis. PRP had the most consistent evidence of faster retraction during the first month, supported by moderate-certainty evidence. i-PRF and L-PRF showed potential effects at other time points, but findings were heterogeneous and supported by low- to very low-certainty evidence. No consistent effects on movement pattern or anchorage loss were identified.
Key findings
- PRP showed a possible acceleration of canine retraction during the first month, supported by moderate-certainty evidence.
- i-PRF had statistically significant effects across multiple observation periods, but analyses showed substantial heterogeneity.
- L-PRF effects were observed from the first week through the third month; certainty was low to very low.
- No consistent effects on canine movement pattern or anchorage loss were found; transient pain or discomfort followed PRP and i-PRF administration.
Why it matters
The review evaluates whether locally administered autologous platelet concentrates can alter the pace of orthodontic tooth movement and summarizes related outcomes, including anchorage and adverse effects. Its findings suggest a possible short-term benefit with PRP, while uncertainty around other preparations and outcomes remains substantial. This distinction helps frame the evidence without assuming that faster movement translates into a meaningful reduction in overall treatment burden.
What to keep in mind
Substantial heterogeneity affected i-PRF and L-PRF analyses, and most findings had low to very low certainty. The review also notes that further well-designed randomized trials are needed to establish clinical relevance and optimal protocols.