# Complications Arising Due to Orthodontic Treatment--A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
## 3 Results
The risk ratio found was 0.72 [0.58, 0.90], which suggests that the intervention may be effective in reducing the risk of complications in the study population. The risk ratio of less than 1 indicates that the patients who received the intervention (which differed from study-to-study as per the complication that was observed in it) had a lower risk of experiencing orthodontic complications compared to those who did not receive the intervention. The confidence interval for the risk ratio ranged from 0.58 to 0.90, indicating that the true effect size is likely to fall within this range. However, the wide confidence interval suggests some uncertainty regarding the true effect size of the intervention. The heterogeneity statistics reported in the forest plot indicate that there is significant variation in the effect sizes reported across the studies included in the meta-analysis. The Tau\({}^{2}\) value of 0.13 suggests that there is moderate heterogeneity between the studies, while the Chi\({}^{2}\) value of 90.82, with 12 degrees of freedom and a \(p\)-value of \(<\)0.00001, indicates significant heterogeneity. The I\({}^{2}\) value of 87% indicates that a large proportion of the heterogeneity is due to true differences in effect sizes. The test for overall effect, with a Z-value of 2.93 and a \(p\)-value of 0.003, indicates that the overall effect of the intervention on reducing orthodontic complications is statistically significant. Overall, the forest plot suggests that the intervention may be effective in reducing the risk of orthodontic complications in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. However, the wide confidence interval and significant heterogeneity indicate that further research is needed to confirm the intervention's effects and explore the sources of heterogeneity. The forest plot represented in Figure 5 shows the results of the meta-analysis that examined the impact of complications on the sample size, which consisted of patients undergoing orthodontic treatment in any form, as reported in the clinical studies [17; 18; 19; 20; 21; 22; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27; 28; 29; 30]. The risk difference found was \(-0.16\) [\(-0.42,0.11\)], which suggests that the risk of complications might be lower in the group receiving the intervention (which differed from study-to-study as per the complication that was observed in it) compared to the control group. However, it is important to note that the confidence interval ranged from \(-0.42\) to \(0.11\), which indicates that the true effect size may be anywhere within this range. The forest plot also reported heterogeneity statistics, which indicate how much variation existed between the studies included in the meta-analysis. The Tau\({}^{2}\) value of 0.25 suggests that there is substantial heterogeneity, meaning that the studies differ significantly from each other in terms of their effect sizes. The Chi\({}^{2}\) value of 1511.37, with 13 degrees of freedom and a \(p\)-value of \(<\)0.00001, indicates significant heterogeneity. The I\({}^{2}\) value of 99% suggests that almost all of the heterogeneity is due to true differences in effect sizes, rather than chance or sampling error. This high level of heterogeneity means that the studies may have different populations, interventions, or outcomes, which makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions from the meta-analysis. In summary, the forest plot suggests that the intervention may reduce the risk of complications, but the true effect size is uncertain due to the wide confidence interval and high level of heterogeneity. Future research should aim to address the sources of heterogeneity and provide more precise estimates of the intervention's effects.