SynthesisEvidence-based dentistry2024
Use of electrical stimulation for accelerated orthodontics in humans: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Evidence-based dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Design of a wearable compact pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) device for orthodontic treatments.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The Effectiveness of Physical Adjunctive Interventions in the Acceleration of Orthodontic Tooth Movement: An Umbrella Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of dentistry · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe main objective of this systematic review is to comprehensively evaluate all the relevant studies to evaluate the effectiveness of electrical stimulation to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement in human patients.
methodsUsing a suitable search strategy, various databases like PubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus and Google Scholar were surveyed for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs); after which a hand search of related orthodontic journals was completed. The risk of bias of studies was checked using Cochrane's ROB-2 tool. The quality of evidence of the included studies was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Rate of orthodontic tooth movement was compared and thus efficiency of electrical stimulation to accelerate tooth movement was assessed. Meta-analysis was done on 2 studies out of the 4; rate of orthodontic tooth movement was compared at two time periods after start of treatment (3
resultsVia exploration of the online databases and hand searching, 1080 studies were found after removing duplicates. After full text assessment, 13 studies in total were selected that used electrical stimulation, out of which 4 studies were included in the qualitative analysis as they met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis was done for 3 DISCUSSION: The studies included showed increased risk of selection and performance bias. Also due to the limited number of studies available, there was difficulty in reaching definitive conclusions. The meta-analysis showed a significant difference among the control and experimental group for the 3
conclusionEven though a positive correlation is found between electrical stimulation and acceleration of orthodontic tooth movement, it is advised to conduct further studies, particularly with human participants, to establish a more conclusive outcome. REGISTRATION: This review has received no funding. The protocol for the study was registered in the Prospective Registration of Systematic Review (PROSPERO)(CRD42023495077).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.