Primary study · included by 1 review

Gurlen 2016

ProbableThe reviews cited this study without a PMID, DOI or NCT, so it is matched by first author and year. Two different studies by the same author in the same year could be merged here.

Included by

Maxillary Arch Intrusion With Temporary Anchorage Devices Versus Conventional Intrusion Arches: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Non-Cochrane · intervention · 2026 · cited as Gurlen 2016 · Table 2; Figure 4

Outcome this study informs	Pooled effect	Evidence	Certainty
Amount of incisor intrusion Maxillary incisor intrusion with temporary anchorage devices (TADs/mini-implants) vs Connecticut intrusion arch (CTA)	SMD -1.02 [-1.79, -0.24]	3 studies · 92 participants	GRADE not reported
Amount of incisor intrusion Maxillary incisor intrusion with temporary anchorage devices (TADs/mini-implants) vs Connecticut intrusion arch (CTA)	SMD -0.88 [-1.35, -0.42]	5 studies · 136 participants	Low
Overbite correction Maxillary incisor intrusion with temporary anchorage devices (TADs/mini-implants) vs Connecticut intrusion arch (CTA)	SMD -0.48 [-1.02, 0.06]	4 studies · 96 participants	Low

1 including review in total.