Summary of findings 2. Vibratory stimulation versus control.

Vibratory stimulation versus control
Patient or population: adolescents and adults undergoing orthodontic treatment Setting: university and private practice Intervention: vibratory stimulation Comparison: no intervention or placebo vibration
Outcomes	Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	Number of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Absolute effect in control	Mean difference (MD) with vibratory stimulation compared to control
Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief VAS (1 mm to 100 mm) ‐ 24 hours	47.6 to 57.65	Mean pain intensity in the intervention group was 1.32 mm higher (11.79 lower to 14.43 higher)	‐	154 (3 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ very lowa,b	Insufficient evidence to determine whether this intervention was effective or not at all timepoints
Adverse effects	Not measured
*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; VAS: visual analogue scale
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

^a Downgraded two levels for imprecision
 ^b Downgraded one level for risk of bias