Table 2.
GRADE summary of finding table for Periodontal aspects of the operated canine compared to the contralateral. Evidence level assessment for the following comparisons: Gingival Recession and Probing pocket depth.
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) |
Relative effect (95% CI) | № of participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Risk with Unoperated canine | Risk with Operated canine | |||||
| Gingival Recession | MD 0.05 higher (0.07 lower to 0.17 higher) | – | 210 (2 RCTs) | ⨁◯◯◯ VERY LOW a, b | The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of impacted canine traction on gingival Recession. | |
| Probing pocket depth - Canine (MidB) | MD 0.08 higher (0.07 lower to 0.22 higher) | – | 296 (6 observational studies) | ⨁◯◯◯ VERY LOW c | The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of impacted canine traction on probing pocket depth - Canine (MidB). | |
| Probing pocket depth - Canine (DB) | MD 0.22 higher (0.12 lower to 0.55 higher) | – | 228 (5 observational studies) | ⨁◯◯◯ VERY LOW c, d | The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of impacted canine traction on probing pocket depth - Canine (DB). | |
| Probing pocket depth - Canine (MB) | MD 0.34 higher (0.07 lower to 0.76 higher) | – | 228 (5 observational studies) | ⨁◯◯◯ VERY LOW c, d, e | The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of impacted canine traction on probing pocket depth - Canine (MB). | |
| Probing pocket depth - Canine (DL) | MD 0.01 lower (0.28 lower to 0.25 higher) | – | 228 (5 observational studies) | ⨁◯◯◯ VERY LOW c, d | The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of impacted canine traction on probing pocket depth - Canine (DL). | |
| Probing pocket depth - Canine (MidL) | MD 0.03 lower (0.15 lower to 0.1 higher) | – | 296 (6 observational studies) | ⨁◯◯◯ VERY LOW c | The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of impacted canine traction on probing pocket depth - Canine (MidL). | |
| Probing pocket depth - Canine (ML) | MD 0.37 higher (0.02 lower to 0.76 higher) | – | 228 (5 observational studies) | ⨁◯◯◯ VERY LOW c, d, e | The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of impacted canine traction on probing pocket depth - Canine (ML). | |
| *The 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). CI: Confidence interval; MD: Mean difference | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence 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 | ||||||
a
The study by Smailiene et al. did not make clear some points of their assessment of risk of bias. Due to its weight in the analysis, it was classified as a serious risk of bias.
b
Few studies were included in the analysis; therefore, the analysis is not robust.
c
The analysis was composed mostly of observational studies.
d
Statistical heterogeneity across studies (I² between 50–80 %).
e
Wide confidence interval.