Primary study · included by 1 review
Maxillary Incisor Intrusion Using Two Conventional Intrusion Arches and Mini Implants: A Prospective Study.
Shakti 2021 · Shakti Prateek, Ani G Suja, Peter Elbe, et al. · The journal of contemporary dental practice · 2021
Included by
| 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 |
Rate of intrusion Maxillary incisor intrusion with temporary anchorage devices (TADs/mini-implants) vs Connecticut intrusion arch (CTA) | SMD 1.18 [0.22, 2.14] | 2 studies · 50 participants | Very low |
1 including review in total.