Skip to main content
. 2024 Nov 28;46(6):cjae060. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjae060

Table 3.

Pairwise (two-group) meta-analyses of MD. 95% CIs around heterogeneity estimates and random-effects prediction intervals could not be calculated for meta-analyses with <3 studies.

Comparison Outcome n MD (95% CI) P τ 2 (95% CI) I 2 (95% CI) Prediction
Aligners vs. fixed appliances ABO-OGS total post-Tx 2 0.05 (−9.36, 9.46) .99 38.72 84% -
ABO-OGS: alignment/rotations 2 0.01 (−1.83, 1.84) .99 1.41 80% -
ABO-OGS: marginal ridges 2 0.64 (−0.07, 1.34) .07 0.14 53% -
ABO-OGS: buccolingual inclination 2 0.35 (−0.17, 0.80) .19 0.03 17% -
ABO-OGS: overjet 2 −0.41 (−2.09, 1.28) .64 0.92 59% -
ABO-OGS: occlusal contacts 2 0.58 (−2.50, 3.67) .71 4.70 95% -
ABO-OGS: occlusal relationships 2 0.48 (−0.57, 1.54) .37 0 0% -
ABO-OGS: interproximal contacts 2 0.06 (−0.36, 0.49) .76 0.05 16% -
ABO-OGS: root angulation 2 −0.11 (−1.90, 1.69) .91 1.53 92% -
Tx duration 2 −0.22 (−5.44, 5.00) .93 11.08 78% -
CAD/CAM vs. prefabricated brackets PAR post-Tx 2 −0.15 (−0.78, 0.48) .64 0 0% -
Tx duration 2 −1.43 (−5.42, 2.55) .48 7.83 95% -
Skeletal vs. conventional anchorage PAR post-Tx 2 −1.36 (−5.29, 2.57) .50 6.38 80% -
PAR reduction 2 1.09 (−3.56, 5.73) .65 0 0% -
Tx duration 2 −0.96 (−4.98, 3.07) .64 0 0% -
SL vs. conventionally-ligated brackets PAR postTx 3 0.23 (−0.92, 1.38) .70 0.49 (0, > 100) 51% (0%, 86%) −11.39, 11.85
% PAR reduction 3 −0.42 (−2.04, 1.20) .62 0 (0, > 100) 0% (0%, 90%) −10.92, 10.09
Tx duration 4 −0.08 (−2.36, 2.21) .95 3.18 (0, 79.10) 58% (0%, 86%) −9.24, 9.09

ABO, American Board of Orthodontics; CAD/CAM, computer-assisted designed/manufactured; CI, confidence interval; MD, mean difference; OGS, objective grading system; PAR, peer assessment rating; SL, self-ligating; Tx, treatment.