Summary of findings 6. Superelastic nickel‐titanium (NiTi) versus thermoelastic NiTi arch wires.
| Superelastic NiTi versus thermoelastic NiTi arch wires | ||||||
|
Population: people receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances
Settings: university clinics, faculty practices and private practices
Intervention: thermoelastic NiTi Control: superelastic NiTi | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Number of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Control | Thermoelastic NiTi | |||||
| Alignment rate between first molars Little's Irregularity Index Follow‐up: 8 weeks | Mean alignment rate in the control groups was 30.40 mm/8 weeks (15.20 mm per month) | Mean alignment rate between first molars in the intervention groups was 16.28 slower (36.61 slower to 4.05 faster) | 46 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1 | Abdelrahman 2015a also reported no statistically significant difference of alignment rate over 8 or 16 weeks | |
| Time to alignment Follow‐up: 16 weeks | Mean time to alignment in the control groups was 10.1 weeks | Mean time to alignment in the intervention groups was 0.5 shorter (1.78 shorter to 0.78 longer) | 50 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1 | ||
| Pain day 1 VAS (0‐100 mm) Follow‐up: 7 days | Mean pain in the control groups was 36.0 | Mean pain day 1 in the intervention groups was 7.0 mm lower (26.56 lower to 12.56 higher) | 30 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1 | MD of pain day 7 (superelastic NiTi versus thermoelastic NiTi) was 2.30, 95% CI ‐12.09 to 16.69 | |
| Root resorption | Not measured | |||||
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (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; MD: mean difference; NiTi: nickel‐titanium | ||||||
| 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. | ||||||
1Downgraded two levels due to very serious imprecision.