Summary of findings 2.
Conventional (stabilised) nickel titanium arch wires compared with superelastic nickel titanium arch wires
| Conventional (stabilised) nickel titanium arch wires compared with superelastic nickel titanium arch wires | ||||||
|
Patient or population: Adolescents undergoing orthodontic treatment ‐ initial alignment phase Settings: University or private orthodontic clinics Intervention: Superelastic nickel titanium arch wires Comparison: Conventional (stabilised) nickel titanium arch wires | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Conventional nickel titanium | Superelastic nickel titanium | |||||
|
Tooth movement (follow‐up 35 days) |
Not estimated | Not estimated | Meta‐analysis not possible (single study) | 1 study (40 participants) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1 | |
|
Pain (VAS) day 1 (follow‐up 7 days) |
Not estimated | Not estimated | Meta‐analysis not possible (single study) | 1 study (79 participants) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1 | |
| Root resorption | Not reported | Not reported | ||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1 One small study at high risk of bias, lacks precision