Evaluation of piezosurgery combined with L-PRF, A-PRF, and photobiomodulation for optimizing MRONJ treatment: an animal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research evaluates the complementary roles of piezosurgery, photobiomodulation (PBM), leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF), and advanced platelet-rich fibrin (A-PRF) in the management of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ). First, we induced MRONJ lesions in rats. All rats were inspected for signs of MRONJ eight weeks post-extraction. Forty-nine rats having positive signs of MRONJ were selected and categorized into seven different groups: C (control), PS (piezosurgery), P (piezosurgery + PBM), A (piezosurgery + A-PRF), L (piezosurgery + L-PRF), A + P (piezosurgery + A-PRF + PBM), and L + P (piezosurgery + L-PRF + PBM). Thirty days after the last treatment session, euthanasia was carried out. Additionally, the healing of the lesions was evaluated radiographically, clinically, and histologically. The data were analyzed using STATA software version 14, with a significance level set at 5%. Based on the current research, L-PRF and A-PRF treatments led to significant improvements in radiographical, clinical, and histological parameters compared to the C group (P ˂ 0.05). The PBM, compared to the C group (P ˂ 0.05), decreased the number of empty lacunae and bone and wound exposure dimensions. 6 out of 7 cases showed complete MRONJ resolution in L + P and A + P (P ˂ 0.05). Consequently, no considerable difference between A-PRF and L-PRF treatment groups was observed (P ˃ 0.05). Considering the limitations of this animal study, we concluded that piezosurgery and photobiomodulation alone, unlike PRF, are insufficient for MRONJ treatment. Importantly, the combination of piezosurgery, PBM, and PRF therapy yielded the most promising results in addressing MRONJ. Further clinical investigations are required to confirm these findings.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".