ArticleBMC oral health2025
How do infrared and near-infrared lasers influence autophagy and alveolar bone remodeling in rats during orthodontic tooth retention?
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFew studies have explored the association between autophagy and osteogenesis during orthodontic retention. This study compared the impact of 660-nm infrared (IR) and 808-nm near-infrared (NIR) lasers on the autophagy and alveolar bone remodeling in rats during orthodontic tooth retention.
methodsSeventy-five rats were divided into three groups: Group A (control), Group B (660 -nm IR irradiation), and Group C (808-nm NIR irradiation). A 50-g force was applied by ligating a nickel-titanium coil spring from the left upper first molar to the incisors to move the molar in a mesial direction for 3 weeks, with weekly force applications. Post-force application, a fixed retainer was used to maintain the molar-incisor distance on days 1, 7, 14, 21, and 28, establishing a retention model; 660-nm and 808-nm lasers (100 mW, 9 mm spot, 5 J/cm²) were directed to the buccal and palatal gingiva at the mid-root height of the first molar for 30 s every 3 days. After removal of the fixed retainers, the rats underwent a 3-day recovery phase before euthanasia on days 4, 10, 17, 24, and 31 post-irradiation. The relapse rates of the molar were assessed by 3Shape scanning, alveolar bone density using micro-computed tomography, and periodontal tissue remodeling through histological staining at the tensile zone of the molar.
resultsWith longer retention, the relapse rate and the number of tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP)-positive cells decreased. At the same time, alveolar bone density and autophagy protein Beclin-I/osteoprotegerin (OPG) expression increased, peaking at 28 days (P < 0.001). From days 7-21, Group C exhibited the lowest relapse and TRAP-positive cells, and the highest bone density and Beclin-1/OPG levels (P < 0.05). At day 28, Groups B and C exhibited comparable outcomes, both superior to Group A (P < 0.001).
conclusionCompared with 660-nm IR irradiation, 808-nm NIR irradiation more effectively enhanced autophagy, promoted periodontal remodeling, reduced rather than inhibit osteoclast proliferation, and decreased relapse during retention; however, the effects diminished over time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.