Table 2.

Characteristics of the Included Studies

Authors (Year), Country	Test Group (n) Patients, Teeth Age Range (Age Mean ± SD)	Control Group	Evaluated Teeth	Force Type, Value (g), Duration
Outcome: Histomorphological Changes
Abtahi et al. (2016), Iran	n = 22 patients 13–35 y	Contralateral teeth No treatment	Maxillary first premolars	Intrusion 15 g 7 to 30 d
Bunner and Johnsen (1982), USA	n = 2 patients, 4 teeth 22–23 y	n = 49 teeth No treatment	Mandibular first molars	Tipping and extrusion 90 to 100 g 10 d (short) to 171 d (long time)
Derringer et al. (1996), England	n = 15 teeth 11–14 y	n = 15 teeth 11–14 y No treatment	Maxillary and mandibular premolars	COM 51 to 102 g 2 wk
Derringer and Linden (1998), England	n = 14 patients, 14 teeth 11–14 y	Contralateral teeth No treatment	Maxillary second premolars	COM 51 to 102 g 2 wk
Derringer and Linden (2003), England	n = 10 patients, 10 teeth 11–14 y	n = 8 patients, 4 teeth 11–14 y No treatment	Maxillary second premolars	COM 51 to 102 g 2 wk
Hall (2013), Australia	n = 16 patients, 16 teeth 11–18 y	Contralateral teeth No treatment	Maxillary first premolars	Extrusion 50 g 14 d
Hamersky et al. (1980), USA	n = 17 patients, 34 teeth 11.8–25.8 y (15 y)	Contralateral teeth No treatment	Maxillary and mandibular first premolars	COM 170 g 72h ± 2 h
Han et al. (2013), China	n = 24 patients, 48 teeth 14–24y (17.9 y)	n = 3 patients, 6 teeth 14–24 y (17.9 y) No treatment	Maxillary first premolars	Intrusion 50 to 300 g 1 to 12 wk
Kayhan et al. (2000), Turkey	n = 34 teeth 15–17 y	n = 11 teeth 15–17 y No treatment	Maxillary premolars	RME 3 wk
Küçükkeles and Okar (1994), Turkey	n = 2 patients, 2 teeth	Contralateral teeth No treatment	Maxillary first premolars	Intrusion 150 g 3 mo
Lazzaretti et al. (2014), Brazil	n = 17 patients, 17 teeth 12–19 y	Contralateral teeth No treatment	Maxillary first premolars	Intrusion 60g 21 d
Leone et al. (2012), Italy	n = 20 patients, 20 teeth 10–14 y	No control group	Maxillary premolars	COM 3 to 6 mo
Mostafa et al. (1991), Egypt	n = 18 patients, 18 teeth 16–21 y (18 y)	Contralateral teeth No treatment	Maxillary first premolars	Extrusion 57g 1 wk to 4 wk
Ramazanzadeh et al. (2009), Iran	n = 26 patients, 40 teeth 14–24 y (16.8 y ± 3.2 y)	Contralateral teeth No treatment	Maxillary first premolars	Extrusion or intrusion 25 to 75 g 3 d to 3 wk
Sübay et al. (2001), Turkey	n = 15 patients, 40 teeth 15–18 y	No control group	Maxillary and mandibular first premolars	Extrusion 75g 10 d to 40 d
Taspinar et al. (2003), Turkey	n = 20 teeth 13–17 y	n = 8 teeth 13–17 y No treatment	Maxillary premolars	RME 22 d
Timms and Moss (1971), England	n = 8 patients 11–17 y	No control group	Maxillary premolars	RME 2 to 4 wk
Wong et al. (1999), Australia	n = 12 patients, 12 teeth	Contralateral teeth No treatment	Maxillary first premolars	Tipping movement 3 wk
Outcome: Tissue Factors Expression
Caviedes-Bucheli et al. (2011), Colombia	n = 20 patients, 20 teeth 18–37 y	n = 10 teeth 18–37 y No treatment	Maxillary first premolars	Tipping and extrusion 56 g (moderate) to 224 g (severe) 24h
Chavarria-Bolanos et al. (2014), Mexico	n = 8 patients, 8 teeth 12–16 y	n = 8 patients, 8 teeth No treatment	Maxillary first premolars	Intrusion 150 to 200 g 24 h
Han et al. (2020), China	n = 12 patients, 24 teeth 14–24 y (17.9 y)	n = 3 patients, 6 teeth 14–24 y (17.9 y) No treatment	Maxillary first premolars	Intrusion 300 g 1 to 12 wk
Leone et al. (2002), Italy	11–13 y	11–13 y No treatment	Maxillary and mandibular premolars	COM
Leone et al. (2009), Italy	n = 6 patients, 6 teeth 11–14 y	n = 4 patients, 4 teeth 11–14 y No treatment	Maxillary premolars	COM
Leone et al. (2012), Italy	n = 20 patients, 20 teeth 10–14y	No control group	Maxillary premolars	COM 3 to 6 mo
Parris et al. (1989), USA	n = 11 patients, 22 teeth (15.1 y ± 4.9 y)	n = 9 patients, 18 teeth (13.9 y ± 1.7 y) No treatment	Maxillary and mandibular premolars	Tipping 120 to 245 g 21 to 72 min
Pérez et al. (2017), Spain	n = 20 patients, 20 teeth 14–21 y (17.35 y ± 2 y)	Contralateral teeth No treatment	Maxillary first premolars	Intrusion 75 g 48 h
Perinetti et al. (2004), Italy	n = 17 patients, 17 teeth 14.5–19.6 y (16.8 y ± 1.6y)	Contralateral teeth No treatment	Maxillary first premolars	COM 30 to 90 g 7 d
Perinetti et al. (2005), Italy	n = 16 patients, 16 teeth 15–19.6 y (17 y ± 1.6 y)	Contralateral teeth No treatment	Maxillary first premolars	COM 30 to 90 g 7 d
Veberiene et al. (2009), Lithuania	n = 21 patients, 21 teeth 11–21 y (15.5 ± 0.5 y)	Contralateral teeth No treatment	Maxillary and mandibular premolars	Intrusion 61 g 7 d
Veberiene et al. (2010), Lithuania	n = 13 patients, 13 teeth 14–22 y (16.5 ± 2.7 y)	No control group	Maxillary premolars	Intrusion 82 to 97 g 7 to 14 d
Veberiene et al. (2015), Lithuania	n = 10 patients, 20 teeth 16–34 y	n = 6 patients, 11 teeth 16–34 y (25.7 y ± 4.3 y) No treatment	Maxillary second premolars	COM 6m (±0.8 mo)
Walker Jr. et al. (1987), USA	n = 10 patients, 40 teeth	n = 6 patients, 20 teeth No treatment	Maxillary and mandibular premolars	Tipping 41 to 174 g 20 to 150 min

AP indicates alkaline phosphatase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; CGRP, calcitonin gene-related peptide; COM, conventional orthodontic movement; d, days; F, female; g, gram; h, hour; HSP60, heat shock protein 60; iNOS, macrophageal nitric oxide synthase; nNOS, neural nitric oxide synthase; M, male; mg, milligram; mo, months; ME, methionine-enkephalin; min, minute; mm, millimeter; MMP, matrix metalloproteinase; PCNA, proliferating cell nuclear antigen; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; RME, rapid maxillary expansion; SD, standard deviation; T, time; TEM, transmission electron microscope; w, week; y, years old.