Question · asked by 1 review
NiTi arch wire of one cross-sectional size vs NiTi arch wire of a different cross-sectional size: Root resorption
- Population
- People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)
- Intervention
- NiTi arch wire of one cross-sectional size
- Comparison
- NiTi arch wire of a different cross-sectional size
- Outcome
- Root resorption
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
NiTi arch wire of one cross-sectional size vs NiTi arch wire of a different cross-sectional size Root resorption · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch) The review found no eligible studies for this question. Initial arch wires used in orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (2024) · Cochrane All outcomes | Root resorption: not reported | 0 studies | No studies found |
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 |
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.