ReviewCureus2026
Maxillary Arch Intrusion With Temporary Anchorage Devices Versus Conventional Intrusion Arches: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deep bite correction often requires maxillary incisor intrusion, and both temporary anchorage devices (TADs) and conventional intrusion arches are used for this purpose. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness of TAD-supported maxillary arch intrusion with conventional intrusion arches in patients with deep bite or Class II malocclusion undergoing maxillary incisor intrusion. A comprehensive electronic search was performed in PubMed, PMC/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and DOAJ for studies published up to December 31, 2025. Randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative clinical studies evaluating maxillary incisor intrusion with TADs versus conventional intrusion arches were included. Study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and quantitative synthesis were performed using predefined criteria. Nine studies met the eligibility criteria, including three randomized controlled trials and six non-randomized comparative studies. Both TAD-supported and conventional intrusion mechanics were effective in achieving maxillary incisor intrusion and reducing deep bite. However, the pooled analysis favored TAD-supported intrusion for the rate of intrusion, amount of incisor intrusion, and overbite correction. The pooled standardized mean difference was 1.18 for the rate of intrusion, -0.88 for incisor intrusion, and -0.48 for overbite correction, all favoring TADs. Treatment duration did not differ significantly between the two approaches. Qualitative findings also suggested better posterior anchorage preservation with TAD-supported mechanics, whereas conventional intrusion arches were more commonly associated with molar extrusion and incisor proclination. Within the limitations of the available evidence, TAD-supported intrusion tended to show favorable effects for some intrusion-related outcomes compared with conventional intrusion arches; however, treatment duration did not differ significantly, and adverse effects were also reported in some TAD protocols. The certainty of evidence was low to very low, and thus, further well-designed long-term studies are needed.
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.