Table 9. 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 [31] (unclear risk of bias of randomization process, unclear risk of bias in the measurement of outcomes), and one level for imprecision**.
b Decline two levels for risk of bias in [43] (unclear risk of bias of deviation from intended intervention, unclear risk of bias in the measurement of outcomes), and one level for imprecision**.
** Limited number of trials and limited sample size.
GRADE: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; RCT: randomized controlled trial.
| 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 complete orthodontic treatment | 12 (1 RCT) | ⨁⊝⊝⊝ Very low a | There was a significant difference in the duration of complete orthodontic treatment between the acceleration and the conventional groups |
| The velocity of impacted canine movement | 12 (1 RCT) | ⨁⊝⊝⊝ Very low a | The evidence suggests that the acceleration technique results in a greater canine movement rate compared to the conventional technique |
| The velocity of impacted canine movement | 12 (1 RCT) | ⨁⊝⊝⊝ Very low b | There was a significant difference in the rate of impacted canine movement between the intervention group and the control group |
| Periodontal outcomes | 12 (1 RCT) | ⨁⊝⊝⊝ Very low a | There were no clinical differences between the corticotomy-assisted canines and their contralateral teeth regarding the periodontal probing and bone levels |
| Periodontal outcomes | 12 (1 RCT) | ⨁⊝⊝⊝ Very low b | There was no statistical difference between the two study groups in terms of the width of keratinized gingiva and gingival recession variables, while a statistical difference was found between the two groups in the alveolar bone thickness |