Table 6 Additional findings from the included studies
From: Assessment of the efficacy of various maxillary molar intrusion therapies: a systematic review
Study | Root resorption | Amount of vertical movement of mandibular molars (mean (mm) ± SD) | Stability of intrusion | Patient reported outcomes | Compliance | Cost effective-ness | Adverse events | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Parameter | E1 | E2 | E1 | E2 | C | ||||||
Akl et al. [26, 27] (2020,2021) E1: TADs 200 g E2: TADs 400 g | Change in length of molar roots (mean ± SD) | − 0.8 ± 0.88 mm | − 0.82 ± 0.93 mm | 1.06 ± 2.06 mm | 0.65 ± 0.52 mm |  - | NA |  NA |  NA |  NA | Soft tissue overgrowth around the heads of the infrazygomatic TADs TAD failure (loose): n = 2 (one infrazygomatic and one palatal TAD) No inter-group comparison |
Abellan et al. [25] (2021) E1: PBM and TADs E2: TADs | Change in molar volume (mean ± SD) | − 52 ± 142.22 mm3 | − 22.4 ± 160.59 mm3 | NA |  NA |  NA | NA |  NA | NA |  NA | TAD failure: n = 4 (one developed soft tissue hypertrophy, and the other 3 became loose) |
Torres et al. [31] (2006) E1: crib and HP chin cup C: no treatment | NA |  NA |  NA | 1.06 ± 1.31 |  - | 0.84 ± 1.03 | NA |  NA |  NA |  NA | NI |
Doshi et al. [28] (2010) E1: spring-loaded bite block E2: magnetic bite block | NA |  NA |  NA | − 0.2 ± 0.3 | − 0.8 ± 0.4 |  - | NA |  NA |  NA |  NA | E1: breakage (n = 7) |
Hasan et al. [32] (2021) E1: FPBB and LLLT E2: FPBB C: no treatment | NA | NA |  NA | 0.04 ± 0.41 | 0.14 ± 0.23 |  - | NA |  NA |  NA |  NA | No observed harms |
Mousa et al. [30] (2021) E1: OBB E2: RPBP/C | NA |  NA |  NA | 0.19 ± 1.1 | − 0.27 ± 1.3 |  - | NA |  NA |  NA |  NA | E1: tongue ulceration (n = 2) E2: tongue ulceration (n = 2) and soft tissue irritation (n = 2) |
Hasan et al. [32] (2022) E: RMI C: no treatment | NA |  NA |  NA | − 1.54 ± 2.18 |  - | 0.56 ± 1.77 | NA |  NA |  NA |  NA | Spring fracture (n = 2) |