Background
Objective
Methods
Protocol and registration
Eligibility criteria
Domain | Inclusion criteria | Exclusion criteria |
---|---|---|
Participants | Female animal subjects during pregnancy or lactation undergoing orthodontic tooth movement. | Male animal subjects Female animal subjects under medication, with pathological conditions or dietary deficiencies. |
Interventions | All types of orthodontic interventions to induce movement of teeth. | Other kinds of orthodontic interventions, like growth modification, etc. Subjects undergoing any kind of orthodontic tooth movement in conjunction with other clinical interventions such as tooth extraction, etc. |
Comparisons | Female animal subjects not pregnant or lactating undergoing orthodontic tooth movement. | |
Outcomes | Quantitative data regarding the amount of orthodontic tooth movement measured by various ways [directly or from plaster models with callipers, feeler gauges, etc.; from histological cuts directly on the optical microscope or from digital photos; radiographs of any kind i.e. lateral cephalometric radiographs, Cone Beam CT, micro-CT, etc.]. | Qualitative assessments regarding the amount of orthodontic tooth movement. |
Study design | Experimental prospective controlled studies with a separate control group (according to the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network algorithm for classifying study design (available at http://www.sign.ac.uk/assets/study_design.pdf). | Human studies Case studies, cross-over studies, studies without a separate control group. In vitro, ex-vivo or in silico studies. Reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Less than 5 subjects per group analysed [36]. |
Information sources and search strategy
Study selection, data collection and data items
Risk of bias in individual studies
Summary measures, synthesis of results, risk of bias across studies and additional analyses
Results
Study selection
Study characteristics
Study | Subjects & tooth movement model characteristics [number; age; weight] | Tooth movement measurements |
---|---|---|
Ghajar et al. [43] 2013 – Iran | 48 Wistar rats [24 pregnant - 1stw; 24 control] 3 m; 250 ± 25 g; parity nm Sample size calculation: nm SS spring between Mx CIs [30 g] Force application: 2w | Clinical measurements Distance between the mesial corners of MxCIsa Method error assessment: No |
Hellsing and Hammarström [44] 1991 – Sweden | 10 Sprague-Dawley rats [5 pregnant - beginning; 5 control] 3-5 m; 260 g on average; parity nm Sample size calculation: nm 0.011″ Australian wire between Mx FMs [15 g at 1 mm] Force application: 3w | Measurements on occlusal radiographs Transverse distance between the ends of the outer arms of the wireb Method error assessment: Yes |
Kim and Lee [45] 2000 - Korea | 40 Sprague-Dawley rats [20 pregnant; 20 control] 10 w; 200-280 g; parity nm Sample size calculation: nm NiTi spring to between Mx CI and FM [40 g] Force application: 2w | Measurements on lateral ceph. Radiographs Mesial movement of the Mx FMc Method error assessment: No |
Macari et al. [46] 2018 – New Zealand & Brazil | 12 C57BL/6 mice [6 lactating – d 9 postpartum; 6 control nulliparous] 15-17w Sample size calculation: nm NiTi spring between Mx CI and FM [35 g] Force application: 12d | Measurements on micro-CT Difference of the cemento-enamel junction distance of FM and SM between the control and experimental sided Method error assessment: No |
Risk of bias within studies
Study | Signalling questions | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
Ghajar et al., 2013 [43] | Unclear | Low | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Unclear | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Hellsing and Hammarström, 1991 [44] | Unclear | Low | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Unclear | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Kim and Lee, 2000 [45] | Unclear | Low | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Unclear | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Macari et al., 2018 [46] | Unclear | Low | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Unclear | Low | Low | Low | Low |