Quintão 2005.
| Methods |
Study design: RCT, 4 parallel groups Location: Brazil Setting: Postgraduate orthodontic clinic of the Dental School of the State University of Rio de Janeiro Number of centres: 1 Study period: not stated Funding source: not stated |
|
| Participants |
Inclusion criteria: presence of all permanent teeth except second and third molars; absence of previous orthodontic treatment and absence of previous palatal expansion device; absence of previous relevant expansion device; overjet and overbite that would allow for fixing lower anterior teeth without creating occlusal interferences; crowding degree and dental position that would allow for full insertion of archwire into the bracket; good oral hygiene and periodontal status Exclusion criteria: not stated Number randomised: 45 participants (male/female 17/28; mean age: 13.2 ± 1.2 years for male and 12.8 ± 1.2 years for female participants) Number evaluated: 45 participants (90 arches, upper/lower 45/45) |
|
| Interventions |
Comparison: stainless steel vs multistranded steel vs superelastic NiTi vs thermoactivated NiTi Group A (n = 22 arches, upper/lower 11/11): 0.014‐inch stainless steel (SS GLD, GAC) Group B (n = 22 arches, upper/lower 11/11): 0.0155‐inch multistranded stainless steel (SS Pentacat, GAC) Group C (n = 26 arches, upper/lower 13/13): 0.016‐inch superelastic nickel‐titanium (Sentalloy, GAC) Group D (n = 20 arches, upper/lower 10/10): 0.016‐inch thermoactivated nickel‐titanium (Thermal, G&H) A preadjusted edgewise system, with brackets and slot ring tubes 0.022 × 0.028 inch (GAC) was used in every case Operators: 1 operator |
|
| Outcomes | Alignment rate: tooth movement measured on LII at 8 weeks (indirectly) | |
| Notes |
Sample size calculation: not stated Baseline comparability: not stated |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Quote: "Using a randomised numbering system" |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Comment: allocation concealment not described |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Patient reported outcomes | Unclear risk | Comment: blinding of participants and personnel not described |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Clinician assessed outcomes | Unclear risk | Comment: blinding of outcome assessors not described |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Comment: no withdrawals |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Comment: planned outcomes reported |
| Other bias | Low risk | Comment: no other sources of bias identified |