## 3 Results  
Out of the 417 studies that were initially retrieved after the initiation of the search strategy across databases and citation searching, we were left with five papers [22; 23; 24; 25; 26] that satisfied our inclusion and exclusion criteria. All the selected studies were experimental and animal based. Table 1 provides information on various animal-based experimental studies related to SMF usage in investigating OTM. The first study by [PERSON] et al. [22] was conducted on 18 guinea pigs, and the region and age of the sample size were unspecified. The second study by [PERSON] et al. [23] was conducted on 44 seven-week-old Wistar rats from an unspecified region. The third study by [PERSON] et al. [24] was conducted on 34 Wistar rats in Japan. The sample size was six weeks old. The fourth study by [PERSON] et al. [25] was conducted on 105 BALB/c mice in China. The region of the study was specified as China, and the age of the sample size was unspecified. The fifth study by [PERSON] et al. [26] was conducted on 32 Wistar rats in Australia. The sample size was nine weeks old in this paper. Information on the evaluation of the impact of SMF on OTM in animal models is displayed in Table 2. The table provides information on the study design, sample size, age of sample size, region, and the impact of SMF on OTM. The table also provides information on the primary aim of each study, the modality of SMF used, the groups present, the modality used for OTM assessment, the assessment period, and the impact of SMF observed. Each study used an orthodontic appliance with magnets attached to induce SMF. The assessment of OTM was performed using various methods, such as measuring central incisor movements, inter-dental space between the first and second molars, or staining of sagittal sections of the first molars. The results of the studies showed that SMF had a significant impact on OTM in most of the studies. The SMF group showed a significant increase in OTM compared to non-SMF groups, whereas the SMF + coil spring group showed the most significant OTM. However, one study did not show any significant difference in OTM between the SMF and non-SMF groups. The statistical analysis for the forest plot showing OR 0.58 [0.40, 0.86] indicating the impact of SMF on OTM was assessed as represented in Figure 3, with a noticeable vs. negligible effect observed. The analysis revealed a significant overall effect (Z = 2.72, P = 0.007), indicating that SMF does have an impact on OTM. The heterogeneity test indicated moderate heterogeneity among studies (Chi\({}^{2}\) = 6.70, df = 4, P = 0.15; I\({}^{2}\) = 40%). The 95% CI for the OR of SMF on OTM was 0.40 to 0.86. Figure 4 illustrates the statistical analysis for the forest plot showing RR 0.71 [0.55, 0.91] that was conducted to assess the noticeable vs. negligible impact of SMF on OTM. The analysis revealed a significant overall effect (Z = 2.70, P = 0.007), suggesting that SMF has a noticeable impact on OTM. A fixed effects model was used, and the heterogeneity test indicated moderate heterogeneity among studies (Chi\({}^{2}\) = 5.99, df = 4, P = 0.20; I\({}^{2}\) = 33%). However, caution should be exercised when interpreting these results due to the moderate heterogeneity observed. Future studies are needed to validate these findings and to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. Overall, this analysis provides evidence that SMF may have a noticeable impact on OTM, indicating the need for further investigation into the effects of SMF on orthodontic treatment outcomes.