ReviewInternational journal of dentistry2026
Safety Outcomes and Related Tolerability and Biological Responses of Vibration-Assisted Orthodontic Tooth Movement: A Harm-Focused Systematic Review of RCTs.
Review in International journal of dentistry, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vibration-assisted orthodontic tooth movement (VA-OTM) has been promoted as an adjunct with the potential to accelerate treatment, yet its safety profile-together with related tolerability and biological responses-remains uncertain. This harm-focused systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) primarily appraised clinical safety end points of VA-OTM, while explicitly distinguishing these from tolerability/acceptability outcomes and biological response/surrogate markers. The protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251166672). Reporting followed the PRISMA-Harms extension and Cochrane guidance for harms. Major databases and gray literature were searched through August 2025 without restrictions. Eligible RCTs compared intraoral vibration with no adjunct or sham during fixed-appliance or clear-aligner therapy. Outcome-level risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 and certainty of evidence with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE); heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis, so synthesis was narrative. Twenty-three RCTs (902 participants) were included. For clinical safety end points, root resorption during canine retraction, including severe resorption (>2 mm), was similar between groups, although one of two premolar tipping studies reported smaller resorption crater volumes with vibration (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.