Table 5 Summary of findings table according to the GRADE approach

Anterior joint space (6.0–9.4 mos)

54 patients (2 studies)

< 0.1 mm

–

0.7 mm smaller (0.5 to 0.9 smaller)

⊕_⃝⃝⃝ very low^c

Due to bias

Might shrink anterior joint space

Posterior joint space (6.0–9.4 mos)

54 patients (2 studies)

− 0.1 mm

–

1.0 mm larger (0.9 to 1.2 larger)

⊕_⃝⃝⃝ very low^c

Due to bias

Might enlarge posterior joint space

Superior joint space (6.0–9.4 mos)

54 patients (2 studies)

− 0.2 mm

–

0.7 mm larger (0.5 to 1.0 larger)

⊕_⃝⃝⃝ very lowc

Due to bias

Might enlarge superior joint space

Anterior angle (6.0 mos)

58 patients (2 studies)

− 0.8°

–

0.6° larger (3.9 smaller to 5.0 larger)

⊕_⃝⃝⃝ very lowc^{, d}

Due to bias, imprecision

Little to no difference in anterior angle

Posterior angle (6.0 mos)

88 patients (3 studies)

− 1.4°

–

7.3° smaller (16.7 smaller to 1.1 larger)

⊕_⃝⃝⃝ very lowc^{, d}

Due to bias, imprecision

Little to no difference in posterior angle

Condylar coronary width (6.0–9.4 mos)

76 patients (2 studies)

− 0.1 mm

–

1.1 mm wider (0.1 to 2.2 wider)

⊕_⃝⃝⃝ very lowc^{, d}

Due to bias, imprecision

Might increase condylar coronary width

GleFo sagittal displacement (9.4–11.0 mos)

164 patients (2 studies)

− 0.9 mm (posterior)

–

0.3 mm more posterior (0.7 less to 0.1 more)

⊕_⃝⃝⃝ very low^c

Due to bias

Little to no difference in glenoid fossa sagittal displacement

GleFo vertical displacement (9.4–11.0 mos)

164 patients (2 studies)

0.7 mm (superior)

–

0.4 mm more inferior (0.7 to 0.1 more)

⊕_⃝⃝⃝ very low^c

Due to bias

Little to no difference in glenoid fossa vertical displacement

Sagittal concentricity index (6.0–18.0 mos)

86 patients (2 studies)

1.3%

–

1.3% greater (22.3 smaller to 24.9 greater)

⊕_⃝⃝⃝ very low^{c, d, e}

Due to bias, imprecision, inconsistency

Little to no difference in sagittal concentricity