evidencegaps
Primary study · included by 1 review

Comparative assessment of the rate of orthodontic tooth movement in adolescent patients undergoing treatment by first bicuspid extraction and en mass retraction, associated with low-frequency mechanical vibrations in passive self-ligating and conventional brackets: A randomized controlled trial.

Kumar 2020 · Kumar Vaibhav, Batra Puneet, Sharma Karan, et al. · International orthodontics · 2020

Included by

The Effectiveness of Physical Adjunctive Interventions in the Acceleration of Orthodontic Tooth Movement: An Umbrella Review and Meta-Analysis.
Non-Cochrane · intervention · 2026 · cited as Kumar 2020 · References 36-111; Supporting Information Tables S4-S6
Outcome this study informsPooled effectEvidenceCertainty
Mean en masse retraction rate (mm/month)
Customized vibratory appliance vs Standard orthodontic treatment without the adjunctive intervention
MD 0.19 [-0.25, 0.63]2 studies · 65 participantsVery low
Mean en masse retraction rate (mm/month)
Customized vibratory appliance vs No vibration device (standard orthodontic treatment)
MD 0.29 [-0.44, 1.03]2 studies · 65 participantsVery low

Also linked to PM41647248-P5-O2, which does not match a current question in this review.

1 including review in total.