Table 2.

GRADE summary findings for the main outcome for this study.

Vibratory devices compared to no vibratory devices in patients requiring orthodontic treatment for accelerated tooth movement
Patient or population: patients requiring orthodontic treatment for accelerated tooth movement Setting: Intervention: Vibratory devices Comparison: no vibratory devices
Outcomes	Anticipated absolute effectsc (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	№ of participants (studies)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Risk with no vibratory devices	Risk with Vibratory devices
Amount of tooth movement assessed with: AcceleDent follow up: range 9 weeks–48 weeks	Mean amount of tooth movement: 3.07 ​mm	Mean amount of tooth movement is 0.34 ​mm higher (0.25 ​mm higher to 0.42 ​mm higher)		286 (7 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊕◯ MODERATEa	A total number of 286 patients were evaluated for this outcome
Amount of tooth movement assessed with: Powered tooth brush follow up: range 8 weeks–12 weeks	Mean amount of tooth movement: 2.46 ​mm	Mean amount of tooth movement is 0.03 ​mm higher (0.88 higher to 0.82 higher)		96 (1 RCT and 1 split mouth study)	⊕⊕⊕◯ MODERATEb	A total number of 96 patients were evaluated using electric toothbrush
Amount of tooth movement assessed with: Tooth masseuse follow up: mean 10 weeks	Mean amount of tooth movement:3.4 ​mm	Mean amount of tooth movement is 0.6 ​mm higher		66 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊕⊕ HIGH	A total number of 66 patients were evaluated for any accelerated tooth movement using tooth masseuse

CI: Confidence interval High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate certainty: 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 certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

^aDowngraded one level for risk of bias: allocation concealment not reported in 1 trial, attrition bias and reporting bias noted in 1 trial.

^bDowngraded one level for risk of bias: 1 Non RCT and blinding of outcome assessment not done in 1 trial.

^cThe 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).