Table 8. Summary of findings according to the GRADE guidelines for the included studies.
* The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
a Decline two levels for risk of bias in [7,42] (unclear risk of bias of randomization process, unclear risk of bias of deviation from intended intervention, unclear risk of bias in the measurement of outcomes ), and one level for imprecision*.
b Decline one level for risk of bias in [17,41] (unclear risk of bias of deviation from intended intervention), and one level for imprecision**.
c Decline two levels for risk of bias in [15] (unclear risk of bias in classification of interventions, unclear risk of bias in the measurement of outcomes), and one level for imprecision**.
d Decline two levels for risk of bias in [12] (unclear risk of bias of randomization process, unclear risk of bias in the measurement of outcomes), and one level for imprecision**.
e Decline one level for risk of bias in [40] (unclear risk of bias of deviation from intended intervention) and one level for imprecision**.
** Limited number of trials and limited sample size.
GRADE: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.
| Patient or population: patients with palatally impacted canines; Intervention: conventional technique of canine retraction; Comparison: another technique of canine retraction without acceleration | |||
| Outcomes | No. of participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments |
| Duration of orthodontic traction | 43 (1 RCT) | ⨁⊝⊝⊝ Very low a | The evidence is very uncertain about the effectiveness of the ballista loop traction method on the duration of traction |
| Duration of orthodontic traction | 62 (1 RCT) | ⨁⨁⊝⊝ Low b | The evidence is uncertain about the effectiveness of the twin-wire technique or elastic chain traction method on the duration of traction |
| Duration of orthodontic traction | 15 cases, 11 controls (1 observational study) | ⨁⊝⊝⊝ Very low c | The evidence is very uncertain about the effectiveness of the cantilever spring traction method on the duration of traction |
| Duration of complete orthodontic treatment | 43 (1 RCT) | ⨁⊝⊝⊝ Very low a | The evidence is very uncertain about the effectiveness of the ballista loop traction method on the duration of complete orthodontic treatment |
| Periodontal outcomes | 43 (1 RCT) | ⨁⊝⊝⊝ Very low a | The evidence suggests no statistical difference in terms of mean pocket depth, gingival recession, bone support, and width of keratinized gingiva between the two surgical and mechanical techniques |
| Periodontal outcomes | 62 (1 RCT) | ⨁⨁⊝⊝ Low b | The evidence suggests that no statistical differences in the variables were assessed between the two eruption techniques using the twin-wire technique or elastic chain |
| Periodontal outcomes | 15 cases, 11 controls (1 observational study) | ⨁⊝⊝⊝ Very low c | The evidence suggests no significant difference in the variables assessed between the two eruption techniques using cantilever springs |
| Patient’s perception of pain | 32 (1 RCT) | ⨁⊝⊝⊝ Very low d | The evidence suggests no differences in the perceptions of pain in individuals treated with an open or closed technique using a golden chain |
| Patient’s perception of pain | 119 (1 RCT) | ⨁⨁⊝⊝ Low e | The evidence suggests more post-surgery pain and impairment in the open surgical technique than in the closed surgical technique |
| Patient’s perception of pain | 71 (1 RCT) | ⨁⨁⊝⊝ Low b | The evidence suggests no differences in the perceptions of pain in individuals treated with an open or closed technique using a golden chain |
| Patient’s perception of pain | 15 cases, 11 controls (1 observational study) | ⨁⊝⊝⊝ Very low c | The evidence suggests no differences in the perceptions of pain in individuals treated with either miniscrews or transpalatal arch using a cantilever spring |
| Root resorption | 15 cases, 11 controls (1 observational study) | ⨁⊝⊝⊝ Very low c | There was a significant difference in the volume of lateral incisor root resorption between the miniscrews group and the transpalatal arch group |