Skip to main content
. 2021 Dec 31;2021(12):CD003453. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003453.pub2

Gravina 2013.

Study characteristics
Methods Setting: Brazil, Rio de Janeiro
Design: parallel (3 arms)
No. of centres: 1
Study duration: 8 weeks
Participants Inclusion criteria: "presence of all erupted permanent teeth except for second and third molars; no previous orthodontic treatment; no indications for tooth extraction; overbite and overjet that allowed brackets to be placed on the lower teeth without occlusal interferences; level of crowding and teeth position that allowed a maximum deflection of 2 mm in the archwire when inserted in the bracket slots, and good conditions of oral hygiene and health".
Exclusion criteria: not reported
Participant sampling: 
N = 36 selected
Group 1 (n = 11): sex and mean age of group not reported
Group 2 (n = 12): sex and mean age of group not reported
Group 3 (n = 13): sex and mean age of group not reported
Overall age reported across groups: mean age of 14 ± 2 years
Overall sex reported across both groups: 18 male, 18 female
Dropouts: not reported
Interventions Orthodontic intervention: fixed appliances and auxiliaries
Stainless steel versus multi stranded stainless steel versus nickel‐titanium
Outcomes Crowding
Notes Funding source not cited
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Unclear method of randomisation
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Unclear if allocation sequence concealed from those assigning patients to participant groups
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes High risk Not possible to blind participants and personnel due to the different interventions used
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes Unclear risk Unclear if assessor was blinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes Unclear risk Dropouts not reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All outcomes reported
Other bias Unclear risk Possible measurement bias