Question · asked by 1 review
Superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Conventional (stabilised) NiTi arch wire: Alignment rate
- Population
- People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)
- Intervention
- Superelastic NiTi arch wire
- Comparison
- Conventional (stabilised) NiTi arch wire
- Outcome
- Alignment rate
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Conventional (stabilised) NiTi arch wire Alignment rate · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch) · 5 to 10 weeks Initial arch wires used in orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (2024) · Cochrane All outcomes | Conventional NiTi vs superelastic NiTi (O'Brien 1990; Ong 2011); not pooled due to clinical heterogeneity; little or no difference in alignment rate | 2 studies · 124 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial arch wires used in orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances 2024 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2022-07-04 | Not listed | Not assessed |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Titanium-niobium-tantalum-zirconium (TiNbTaZr) arch wire · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full… · 1 review
- Superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Thermoelastic NiTi arch wire · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full… · 1 review
- Superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Multistrand stainless steel arch wire · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full… · 0 reviews
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.