Insertion torque recordings for the diagnosis of contact between orthodontic mini-implants and dental roots: a systematic review

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies

Authors	Participants type, number, age, and sex	Research design and compared treatment groups	Consecutively treated participants	Power calculation
Motoyoshi et al. [6]	Self-drilling group 13 males and 28 females age 22.3 ± 7.9 years	Non-randomized study Self-drilling group versus Pre-drilling group	Not reported	Not reported
Motoyoshi et al. [6]	Pre-drilling group 11 males and 27 females age 23.6 ± 8.1 years		Not reported	Not reported
Chen et al. [84]	6 mongrel dogs 13–15 months	Split mouth design	Yes	Not reported
Chen et al. [84]	Sex was not reported	Semi mandibles with root contact versus Semi mandible without root contact	Yes	Not reported
Brisceno et al. [25]	7 male Beagle dogs 20–24 months old	Split mouth design 6 weeks of healing after root contact versus 12 weeks of healing after root contact	Yes	Not reported
Wilmes et al. [33]	11 pig cadaver mandibles Age, and sex were not reported	Non-randomized study Random insertion of implants	Not applicable	Not reported
McEwan [32]	Pig cadaver mandibles Number, age, and sex were not reported	Non-randomized study Implants with root contact versus Implants without root contact versus Implants with root penetration	Not applicable	Yes

All data in this table represent those reported in the original manuscript. Additional data obtained through our protocol for ‘Contacting authors’ are not included in this table

ISSN: 2046-4053