Table 4.

Data extraction (methodological difference table of included studies)

Authors	Groups Compared	Leveling and alignment	Screw used							Wire used			Force
			Number	Diameter (mm)	Length (mm)	Type	Location	Loading	Application of force	Diameter	Type	Base Arch	CSA (g)	TAD (g)
Senışık and Türkkahraman	3 groups: 2 treatment groups and 1 untreated control group (n=15/each group)	Not performed	Two	1.3	5	Absoanchor	Between the roots of the lateral incisors and canines	Immediately	NITI closed coil springs	0.016 × 0.022 Niti	Ortho organizers	0.016 st.st	60	90
Polat-Özsoy et al.	2 groups: Group 1 (TAD), (n=13) Group 2 (CSA) (n=11)	Done	Two	1.2	6	Absoanchor	Distally to the maxillary lateral incisors	1 week later	NITI closed coil springs	0.016 × 0.016-in blue Elgiloy	Rocky mountain orthodontics	0.016 × 0.022 st.st	-	80
Krishna et al.	Two groups (n=7/each group)	Done (approximately 2 months)	One	2	8	Leone	Between the maxillary central incisors	2 weeks later	NITI closed coil springs	0.016” × 0.022” TMA	-	-	50	50
Raj et al.	2 groups (n=10/each group)	Done (approximately 3 months)	Two	-	-	-	Between roots of upper laterals, canines	2 weeks later	NITI closed coil springs	Burstone intrusive arch	-	-	70	70
El namarawy et al.	Two groups (n=15/each group)	Done	Two	1.4	6	Jeil	Distally to the maxillary lateral incisors	2 weeks later	NITI closed coil springs	0.017” × 0.025” TMA	Ormco	0.016” × 0.022” st.st	100	100
Jain et al.	Three Groups: Group 1 (TAD) (n=10) Group 2 ( J-hook headgear) (n=10) Group 3 (utility arch) (n=10)	Done	Two	1.4	6	Absoanchor	Between the maxillary central and lateral incisor	Not mentioned	NITI closed coil springs	19 × 25 blue elgiloy	Not mentioned	19 × 25 St.st	1.5 ounces = 42.5	1.5 ounces =4 2.5

CSA: Conventional segmented arch; TAD: Temporary anchorage device