Table 4.
Longevity outcomes of included articles
| Study | SM assessed (n) | Summary of longevity findings | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure rates (over × months) | Mean survival length in months | ||
| High quality studies | |||
| Qudeimat and Sasa (2015)** | B&L (18) | 33% (12)* 67% (36)* 83% (52) |
18.78 SE = 3.10 95% CI (12.69–24.86) |
| C&L (18) | 6% (12)* 17% (36)* 22% (52) |
40.4 SE = 2.56 95% CI (35.36–45.42) |
|
| Owais et al. (2011)** | LLA (20) LLA (24) No LLA (23) |
Failed appliances re-included | This paper evaluated the efficacy of the SMs and did not calculate survival lengths |
| Moderate quality studies | |||
| Garg et al. (2014)** | B&L (30) | 64% (6) | |
| GFRCR (30) | 36.7% (6) | ||
| Nidhi et al. (2012)** | B&L (20) | 37% (5) | |
| GFRCR (20) | 21% (5) | ||
| Tunc et al. (2012)** | B&L (10) | 0% (6) 10% (9) 10% (12) |
11.20 |
| GFRCR No Rubber Dam (10) | 60% (6) 80% (9) 80% (12) |
6.7 | |
| DB (10) | 30% (6) 60% (9) 60% (12) |
9.20 | |
| Subaranium et al. (2008)** | B&L (30) | 57% (6) 67% (12) |
|
| GFRCR (30) | 33% (6) 47% (12) |
||
| Low quality studies | |||
| Gulec et al. (2014) | E-Z (41) | 15% (12) | 7! Mean survival time provided is lower than each group's survival time, possible error in results |
| Sasa et al. (2009) | B&L (40) | 13% (12)* 46% (36)* 59% (40)* |
19.9 (median) SE = 8.1 95% CI (4.1–35.7) |
| Fathian et al. (2007) | B&L (112) | Failed appliances re-included | Maxillary 26.0 SD = 17.3 Mandibular 27.7 SD = 14.4 |
| Nance (69) | Failed appliances re-included | 25.5 SD = 14.7 |
|
| LLA (142) | Failed appliances re-included | 26.9 SD = 14.4 |
|
| Moore and Kennedy (2006) | Nance (205) | Failed appliances re-included | 22.7 SD: 12.2 |
| LLA (207) | Failed appliances re-included | 19.9 SD = 11.0 |
|
| Kirzioglu and Ertuk (2004) | GFRCR No Rubber Dam (31) | 94% (12) | |
| Rajab (2002) | B&L (171) | 35% (60) | 20 (median) |
| Nance (69) | 20% (60) | 24 (median) | |
| LLA (115) | 57% (60) | 14 (median) | |
| Removable (32) | 26% (60) | ||
| Qudeimat and Fayle (1998) | B&L (81) | Failed appliances re-included | 13 (median) |
| Nance (30) | Failed appliances re-included | 6 (median) | |
| LLA (71) | Failed appliances re-included | 4 (median) | |
| Removable (82) | Failed appliances re-included | ||
| Santos et al. (1993) | DB (60) (chair side fabrication) | 2% (4) 8% (6) |
|
| Very low quality studies | |||
| Yilmaz et al. (2006) | DB to Open Faced Crowns (23) | 0% (12)! | |
| Kargul et al. (2005) | GFRCR No rubber Dam (23) | 57% (12)! | 5! Survival times only calculated for failed SMs |
| Simsek et al. (2004) | DB (74) | 5% (16)! | |
| Brill (2002) | DES (190) | 12% (unknown)! | |
| Baroni et al. (1994) | B&L (33) | 30% (36)! | |
| Nance (19) | 30% (36)! | ||
| LLA (36) | 60% (36)! | ||
| Tulunoglu et al. (2005) | Unable to distinguish types of SMs used | ||
B&L band and loop, C&L crown and loop, DB direct bonded, DES distal end shoe, GFRCR glass fiber reinforced composite resin, LLA lower lingual arch
*Values calculated from data provided in the study
**This study was designed in a manner that the SMs within this study can be directly compared
!Very low confidence in this finding