Home > DARE Reviews > A systematic review of clinical trials...
  • We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet]. York (UK): Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK); 1995-.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews.

A systematic review of clinical trials of aligning archwires

Review published: 2009.

Bibliographic details: Riley M, Bearn DR.  A systematic review of clinical trials of aligning archwires. Journal of Orthodontics 2009; 36(1): 42-51. [PubMed: 19286875]

Quality assessment

This review concluded that there was insufficient data to make clear recommendations regarding the most effective archwire for alignment in orthodontic treatment. Despite methodological deficiencies (particularly selection bias) the authors' conclusions appear to reflect the limited evidence presented. Full critical summary

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This review aimed to identify the evidence for the efficacy of archwires used in the alignment stage of orthodontic treatment by undertaking a systematic review of the literature.

DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, and the meta Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to July 2008. Reference lists of identified articles and relevant review articles were checked for further possible studies.

REVIEW METHODS: Controlled clinical trials and randomised clinical trials that compared aligning archwires and reported objective measures of alignment were selected for inclusion. Validity and quality assessment were undertaken to identify studies with a low risk of bias. Details of the study methodology and the reported results were then abstracted.

RESULTS: 100 studies were identified by the searches and 7 of these were identified as meeting the selection criteria. Four studies were deemed, after quality assessment, to have a low risk of bias and data was extracted from these. No two studies shared a common methodology or common reporting of outcome. Meta-analysis was therefore not possible.

CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient data in these studies to make clear recommendations regarding the most effective archwire for alignment. Recommendations on future study design have been made.

CRD has determined that this article meets the DARE scientific quality criteria for a systematic review.

Copyright © 2012 University of York.

PubMed Health Blog...

read all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...