Question · asked by 1 review

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment: Discomfort/pain

Population
Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed or removable appliances
Intervention
Light vibrational forces (LVF)
Comparison
Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment
Outcome
Discomfort/pain

Light vibrational forces (LVF) showed no clear difference in patient perception of pain and discomfort (VAS 0 to 100 mm),… compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (placebo or no adjunct) (low certainty).

What each review found

Current versions only
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (placebo or no adjunct)
Patient perception of pain and discomfort (VAS 0 to 100 mm), immediately after ligation of initial archwire · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed or removable appliances · Immediately after ligation of initial archwire (also 4-8h, 1, 3, 7 days)
Light vibrational forces (LVF) showed no clear difference in patient perception of pain and discomfort (VAS 0 to 100 mm),… compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (placebo or no adjunct) (low certainty).
Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic… (2023) · Cochrane All outcomes
MD 2.56 [-2.35, 7.47]3 studies · 153 participantsLow

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment
2023 · Cochrane All outcomes
2022-09Not listedNot assessed

The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.

How reviews are matched to this question

Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.