Orthodontic treatment enhanced using PRP: An alternative to Orthognathic surgery?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The aim was to use an alternative technique to orthognathic surgery with similar functional and aesthetic outcome with the added advantages of being less invasive and comfortable to a patient. Here, we evaluate the efficacy of PRP in the acceleration of Orthodontic treatment using Invisalign to correct a malocclusion of Class III with functional reverse bite in a patient who declined surgery but requested the least visible and time consuming procedure. Methods: PRP was applied three times during the course of the therapy. The orthodontic treatment lasted 10 months. The patient was further provided with restorative care. Protrusion of teeth 11, 21, and 22 by bodily movement, shaping of the upper dental arch and rectification of lower incisors were achieved with no adverse effect to the patient’s dental health. Since we assumed that the pathophysiology of the effect of PRP is the same as for corticotomy, we must assume an effect lasting only three months. The great advantage of our method is the fact that it is a minimally invasive technique and hence we could repeat the procedure thrice. Results: Three applications of PRP significantly shortened the length of orthodontic therapy from 21 months to 10 months. Conclusions: We can conclude that although the technique is perhaps a bit lengthy in terms of time taken to achieve the desired results after surgery but it provides a safe alternative approach for patients who decline surgery or instances where surgery cannot be carried out. Keywords: PRP; corticotomy; orthodontic; aligner; Invisalign;
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".