Objective: To assess the effectiveness of leukocyte–platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) compared with conventional treatment on canine retraction, rotation, pain, and soft tissue healing. Methods: Sixteen adult patients aged 18–25 years (10 females, and 6 males; mean age 22.25 ± 2.26 years) with Class I bimaxillary protrusion and Class II div 1 malocclusion participated in this single-center, split-mouth randomized controlled trial at the Orthodontics Department of a single hospital in SCB Dental College and Hospital, Cuttack, India.Randomization was performed using a computer-assisted function with a 1:1 allocation ratio. The intervention included the placement of L-PRF on the experimental side and follow-up for 90 days. The primary outcome measures were canine retraction, rotation, pain, and soft tissue healing. The range of tooth movement was evaluated at 15-day intervals: 0th day (T0), 15th day (T1), 30th day (T2), 45th day (T3), 60th day (T4), 75th day (T5), and 90th day (T6).Canine rotation was assessed at T0 and T6, and pain and soft tissue healing were evaluated on the 3rd, 7th, and 15th days of the treatment. Results: Cumulatively, the L-PRF group demonstrated a significantly greater tooth movement as compared to conventional treatment group (P < 0.001). Overall, canine retraction was 1.5 times greater on the L-PRF side than on the control side. Canine rotation showed no significant relationship, whereas pain and soft tissue healing were significantly better on the L-PRF side than on the control side. Conclusions Local administration of L-PRF amplifies canine retraction while improving pain and soft tissue repair. 

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of leukocyte–platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) compared with conventional treatment on canine retraction, rotation, pain, and soft tissue healing. Methods: Sixteen adult patients aged 18–25 years (10 females, and 6 males; mean age 22.25 ± 2.26 years) with Class I bimaxillary protrusion and Class II div 1 malocclusion participated in this single-center, split-mouth randomized controlled trial at the Orthodontics Department of a single hospital in SCB Dental College and Hospital, Cuttack, India.Randomization was performed using a computer-assisted function with a 1:1 allocation ratio. The intervention included the placement of L-PRF on the experimental side and follow-up for 90 days. The primary outcome measures were canine retraction, rotation, pain, and soft tissue healing. The range of tooth movement was evaluated at 15-day intervals: 0th day (T0), 15th day (T1), 30th day (T2), 45th day (T3), 60th day (T4), 75th day (T5), and 90th day (T6).Canine rotation was assessed at T0 and T6, and pain and soft tissue healing were evaluated on the 3rd, 7th, and 15th days of the treatment. Results: Cumulatively, the L-PRF group demonstrated a significantly greater tooth movement as compared to conventional treatment group (P < 0.001). Overall, canine retraction was 1.5 times greater on the L-PRF side than on the control side. Canine rotation showed no significant relationship, whereas pain and soft tissue healing were significantly better on the L-PRF side than on the control side. Conclusions Local administration of L-PRF amplifies canine retraction while improving pain and soft tissue repair. 

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of leukocyte–platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) compared with conventional treatment on canine retraction, rotation, pain, and soft tissue healing. Methods: Sixteen adult patients aged 18–25 years (10 females, and 6 males; mean age 22.25 ± 2.26 years) with Class I bimaxillary protrusion and Class II div 1 malocclusion participated in this single-center, split-mouth randomized controlled trial at the Orthodontics Department of a single hospital in SCB Dental College and Hospital, Cuttack, India.Randomization was performed using a computer-assisted function with a 1:1 allocation ratio. The intervention included the placement of L-PRF on the experimental side and follow-up for 90 days. The primary outcome measures were canine retraction, rotation, pain, and soft tissue healing. The range of tooth movement was evaluated at 15-day intervals: 0th day (T0), 15th day (T1), 30th day (T2), 45th day (T3), 60th day (T4), 75th day (T5), and 90th day (T6).Canine rotation was assessed at T0 and T6, and pain and soft tissue healing were evaluated on the 3rd, 7th, and 15th days of the treatment. Results: Cumulatively, the L-PRF group demonstrated a significantly greater tooth movement as compared to conventional treatment group (P < 0.001). Overall, canine retraction was 1.5 times greater on the L-PRF side than on the control side. Canine rotation showed no significant relationship, whereas pain and soft tissue healing were significantly better on the L-PRF side than on the control side. Conclusions Local administration of L-PRF amplifies canine retraction while improving pain and soft tissue repair. 

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of leukocyte–platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) compared with conventional treatment on canine retraction, rotation, pain, and soft tissue healing. Methods: Sixteen adult patients aged 18–25 years (10 females, and 6 males; mean age 22.25 ± 2.26 years) with Class I bimaxillary protrusion and Class II div 1 malocclusion participated in this single-center, split-mouth randomized controlled trial at the Orthodontics Department of a single hospital in SCB Dental College and Hospital, Cuttack, India.Randomization was performed using a computer-assisted function with a 1:1 allocation ratio. The intervention included the placement of L-PRF on the experimental side and follow-up for 90 days. The primary outcome measures were canine retraction, rotation, pain, and soft tissue healing. The range of tooth movement was evaluated at 15-day intervals: 0th day (T0), 15th day (T1), 30th day (T2), 45th day (T3), 60th day (T4), 75th day (T5), and 90th day (T6).Canine rotation was assessed at T0 and T6, and pain and soft tissue healing were evaluated on the 3rd, 7th, and 15th days of the treatment. Results: Cumulatively, the L-PRF group demonstrated a significantly greater tooth movement as compared to conventional treatment group (P < 0.001). Overall, canine retraction was 1.5 times greater on the L-PRF side than on the control side. Canine rotation showed no significant relationship, whereas pain and soft tissue healing were significantly better on the L-PRF side than on the control side. Conclusions Local administration of L-PRF amplifies canine retraction while improving pain and soft tissue repair. 

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of leukocyte–platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) compared with conventional treatment on canine retraction, rotation, pain, and soft tissue healing. Methods: Sixteen adult patients aged 18–25 years (10 females, and 6 males; mean age 22.25 ± 2.26 years) with Class I bimaxillary protrusion and Class II div 1 malocclusion participated in this single-center, split-mouth randomized controlled trial at the Orthodontics Department of a single hospital in SCB Dental College and Hospital, Cuttack, India.Randomization was performed using a computer-assisted function with a 1:1 allocation ratio. The intervention included the placement of L-PRF on the experimental side and follow-up for 90 days. The primary outcome measures were canine retraction, rotation, pain, and soft tissue healing. The range of tooth movement was evaluated at 15-day intervals: 0th day (T0), 15th day (T1), 30th day (T2), 45th day (T3), 60th day (T4), 75th day (T5), and 90th day (T6).Canine rotation was assessed at T0 and T6, and pain and soft tissue healing were evaluated on the 3rd, 7th, and 15th days of the treatment. Results: Cumulatively, the L-PRF group demonstrated a significantly greater tooth movement as compared to conventional treatment group (P < 0.001). Overall, canine retraction was 1.5 times greater on the L-PRF side than on the control side. Canine rotation showed no significant relationship, whereas pain and soft tissue healing were significantly better on the L-PRF side than on the control side. Conclusions Local administration of L-PRF amplifies canine retraction while improving pain and soft tissue repair.