Table 1. Characteristics of the studies included in our systematic review assessing the occlusal outcomes and duration of orthodontic fixed appliance treatment.
Data modifications according to the eligibility of the included reports was as follows.
(i) Pulfer 2009 was excluded from the descriptives because it drew upon the data of Hsieh 2005 and Knierim 2006 to pool them together.
(i) Pulfer 2009 was excluded from the descriptives because it drew upon the data of Hsieh 2005 and Knierim 2006 to pool them together.
(ii) Junqueira 2012 and Mendes 2012 were judged to have mostly overlapping patients; only data from Mendes 2012 are reported, which were the more extensive of the two.
(iii) Anthopoulou 2014 and Mislik 2016 had overlapping patient populations where different factors were assessed. The demographics of Anthopoulou 2014 are reported here.
(iv) Akinci Cansunar 2014, Cansunar 2014, and Cansunar 2016 were judged to have mostly overlapping patients in their report. Data from Akinci Cansunar 2014 are reported here.
(v) Pinskaya 2004 and Hsieh 2005 were omitted as they included both labial and lingual appliances.
(vi) Only a subgroup of patients originating from the Okayama University was included from the Deguchi 2005 study, because the cohort from Indiana University was described in multiple other reports.
*Patient groups pertaining to treatment alternatives noneligible for this review (aligners, lingual appliances, computer- or corticotomy-assisted orthodontics) were excluded.
†Intervention groups were pooled and not separately assessed because of the retrospective nature of the included studies.
‡Some reported in different reports on the same cohort.
Ex, Extraction; DI, discrepancy index; OGS, Objective Grading System; Tx, treatment; FA, fixed appliances; uni, University; NR, not reported; Cl., class; div, division; Int, intervention; Ex, extraction treatment; Non-Ex, nonextraction treatment; FFA, fixed functional appliance; TBO, Thai Board of Orthodontics; HG, headgear; RME, rapid maxillary expansion.