Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

762 questions · 830 findings · 43 reviews · Orthodontics

No studies found 186 · 22.4%GRADE not reported 410 · 49.4%Very low 122 · 14.7%Low 79 · 9.5%Moderate 30 · 3.6%High 3 · 0.4%

Facemask (with frame internal fixation) vs Frankel III functional appliance

Wits appraisal · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Facemask (with frame internal fixation) showed no clear difference in wits appraisal compared with frankel III functional appliance; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances (exposure) vs None (single-group prevalence/incidence estimate)

Incidence of new ICLs (mean number of new lesions per subject) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances, followed for development of new ICLs

Patients developed on average about 2.29 new ICLs during fixed orthodontic treatment (95% CI 1.12-3.46; very low certainty; very high heterogeneity).

1 finding from 1 review

One-step adhesive bonding system (GC Ortho Connect) vs Conventional three-step bonding system (3M Transbond XT)

White spot lesion incidence, area, and depth · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

GC Ortho Connect had more frequent, larger, and deeper WSLs, with certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances (exposure) vs None (single-group prevalence/incidence estimate)

Prevalence of ICLs (mean number of lesions per subject) · Patients (permanent dentition) during or after fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances

Patients had on average about 2.24 ICLs per subject during/after fixed orthodontic treatment (95% CI 1.79-2.70; very low certainty; very high heterogeneity).

1 finding from 1 review

Commercial fluoride-releasing RMGIC orthodontic adhesive (Fuji Ortho LC) vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Fluoride ion release · Human enamel specimens around orthodontic brackets (in vitro)

In vitro, the commercial RMGIC Fuji Ortho LC showed significant fluoride release up to 6 months in a single study (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Mandibular headgear vs no intervention

ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
1 finding from 1 review

Reverse Twin Block with lip pads and rapid maxillary expander (RME) vs no intervention

ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Reverse Twin Block with lip pads and rapid maxillary expander (RME) led to higher ANB compared with untreated control (no treatment); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Opal Seal fluoride-releasing primer vs Conventional Transbond XT primer

White spot lesion area · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

Opal Seal showed no significant difference in WSL area, with certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Non-surgical orthodontic treatment (any: facemask, chin cup, tandem traction bow, mandibular headgear, ORTA, reverse Twin Block, Reverse Forsus) vs no treatment

Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Non-surgical orthodontic treatment (any: facemask, chin cup, tandem… probably leads to higher overjet compared with no treatment (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic adhesives containing nano-amorphous calcium phosphate (n-ACP) particles/nanoparticles vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Enamel remineralization extent · Human enamel specimens around orthodontic brackets (in vitro)

In vitro, n-ACP-containing orthodontic adhesives showed significant enamel remineralization versus control in both studies, but evidence is weak (only 2 studies; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic adhesives containing bioactive glass (BAG) particles/nanoparticles (including Ag-, Zn-, fluoride-, or Ga-doped BAG) vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Enamel remineralization / anti-demineralization extent · Human enamel specimens around orthodontic brackets (in vitro)

In vitro, most bioactive glass-containing orthodontic adhesives (9 of 13 studies) showed significant enamel remineralization/anti-demineralization versus control, but the evidence is weak (predominantly high risk of bias, methodological heterogeneity, no meta-analysis; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgically-anchored orthodontic treatment (miniplates) vs no intervention

Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Surgically-anchored orthodontic treatment (miniplates) may leads to higher overjet compared with untreated control (no treatment) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask vs no intervention

Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Facemask led to higher overjet compared with untreated control (no treatment); GRADE not reported.

3 findings from 1 review

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Facemask only

Wits appraisal · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) showed no clear difference in wits appraisal compared with facemask only; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Single-strand superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Coaxial superelastic NiTi arch wire

Alignment rate · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)

Single-strand superelastic NiTi arch wire probably leads to lower alignment rate compared with coaxial superelastic NiTi arch wire (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Reverse chin cup

ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) showed no clear difference in ANB compared with reverse chin cup; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

ACP light-cure adhesive vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Enamel demineralization (DIAGNOdent score) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35)

A single triple-blinded RCT found the ACP-containing adhesive reduced enamel demineralization versus a conventional adhesive over 6 months (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Tandem traction bow appliance vs no intervention

ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Tandem traction bow appliance led to higher ANB compared with untreated control (no treatment); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review