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%

Fixed tooth-borne expansion (quad-helix) vs Removable tooth-borne expansion (expansion plate)

Crossbite correction · Children and adults with a posterior crossbite, without a Class III skeletal relationship, cleft lip or palate (or both), or other…

Fixed tooth-borne expansion (quad-helix) probably leads to higher crossbite correction compared with removable tooth-borne expansion (expansion plate) (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction vs Single primary (canine) tooth extraction

Overall treatment time wearing orthodontic appliances · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Multistranded stainless steel archwire vs Stainless steel archwire

Amount of crowding (change in mandibular crowding) at 8 weeks · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

It is very uncertain whether multistranded stainless steel archwire changes amount of crowding (change in mandibular crowding) at 8 weeks compared with stainless steel archwire (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Clear aligners (Invisalign / thermoformed aligners) vs Fixed appliances

S. mutans counts (5th-root transformed) · Adolescents/teenagers undergoing orthodontic treatment

A single study found no significant difference in S. mutans counts between aligners and fixed appliances in adolescents at 1 month (MD -2.22, 95% CI -6.82 to 2.38; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Extraction of the primary (baby) canine (single primary tooth extraction) vs No extraction (non-intervention control)

Number of participants referred for surgical exposure of the PDC · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

It is very uncertain whether extraction of the primary (baby) canine (single primary tooth… changes number of participants referred for surgical exposure of the PDC compared with no extraction (non-intervention control) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Cervical pull headgear vs Minor interceptive procedures (control)

Lower incisors to mandible (relationship of lower front teeth to the mandible) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Cervical pull headgear showed no clear difference in lower incisors to mandible at 2 years compared with minor interceptive procedures (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Expansion plate with conventional expansion screw vs Expansion plate with spring-loaded expansion screw

Molar and canine expansion · Children and adults with a posterior crossbite, without a Class III skeletal relationship, cleft lip or palate (or both), or other…
1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride-releasing resin-based bonding agent vs Non-fluoride resin-based bonding agent

Initiation of white spot lesions (WSL), visual-tactile assessment · Patients of any age (11-40 years) receiving comprehensive/fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances

For resin-based bonding agents, fluoride release did not significantly change WSL initiation (RR 0.97); subgroup not separately GRADE-rated.

1 finding from 1 review

Self-ligating brackets vs Conventional brackets

Harms (discomfort, periodontal/gingival health, root resorption) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth
1 finding from 1 review
  • Orthodontic treatment for crowded teeth in children 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
    up to 9 months
    No evidence of differences between self-ligating and conventional brackets for discomfort (Atik 2014, Miles 2010), plaque/gingival index and probing depth (Atik 2014), or maxillary incisor root resorption (Aras 2018).…
    3 studies
    GRADE not reported

Bleaching gel with added remineralising agent (fluoride, calcium, or CPP-ACP) vs Bleaching alone (no remineralising agent)

Whitening (bleaching) efficacy · Demineralised / white-spot-lesion enamel (in vitro specimens)

Low-quality in vitro evidence indicates that adding fluoride or other remineralising agents does not impair the whitening/bleaching effect (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Tooth bleaching (carbamide or hydrogen peroxide; home and/or in-office) vs No bleaching (untreated control)

Colour change / camouflage of white spot lesions (reduction of colour disparity between carious and sound enamel) · Permanent teeth with post-orthodontic white spot lesions (orthodontic patients and in vitro enamel specimens)

Bleaching may diminish colour disparities and camouflage post-orthodontic white spot lesions, but the certainty of the evidence is very low; the findings could neither support nor refute bleaching.

1 finding from 1 review

Laser/light-activated bleaching vs Conventional (non-laser) bleaching with hydrogen or carbamide peroxide

Enamel microhardness / caries susceptibility · Permanent teeth / enamel specimens (in vitro)

Low-quality in vitro evidence found no support for adding lasers to in-office bleaching; laser-activated bleaching did not appear to affect enamel microhardness or caries risk versus conventional bleaching (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Tooth bleaching (carbamide or hydrogen peroxide; home and/or in-office) vs No bleaching (untreated or pH-cycling control)

Caries susceptibility, enamel demineralisation, erosion, or microhardness · Permanent teeth / enamel specimens (in vitro)

Low-quality in vitro evidence suggests that bleaching of permanent teeth does not increase susceptibility to caries, demineralisation or erosion (ungraded); the clinical question could not be answered because only in vitro studies were available.

1 finding from 1 review

Bleaching vs No bleaching (untreated control)

Caries susceptibility, enamel demineralisation, erosion, or microhardness · Permanent teeth or extracted human teeth with artificial lesions

The laboratory studies did not find increased susceptibility to caries or enamel demineralisation, but no firm conclusions can be drawn because of high risk of bias.

1 finding from 1 review

Tooth bleaching (combined in-office and home bleaching) vs No bleaching (untreated control)

Patient satisfaction (measured by patient satisfaction or aesthetic scales) · Patients with post-orthodontic white spot lesions and permanent dentition

In the single RCT, all bleached patients were satisfied with the aesthetic outcome, though the trial was at high risk of bias (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Bleaching vs No bleaching or alternative control

Colour disparity between carious and non-affected enamel · Permanent teeth with post-orthodontic or artificial white spot lesions

Bleaching may diminish colour disparities between carious and non-affected areas (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Bleaching gel with added remineralising agent (fluoride, calcium, or CPP-ACP) vs Bleaching alone (no remineralising agent)

Enamel resistance to demineralization (microhardness / lesion depth) · Extracted human teeth with early/artificial enamel lesions (in vitro)

Low-quality in vitro evidence suggests remineralising additives may reduce mineral loss, but no firm conclusion can be drawn.

1 finding from 1 review

Bleaching gel with added remineralising agent (fluoride, calcium, or CPP-ACP) vs Bleaching alone (no remineralising agent)

Enamel mineral loss / remineralisation · Demineralised / white-spot-lesion enamel (in vitro specimens)

Low-quality in vitro evidence indicates that adding fluoride, calcium or CPP-ACP to bleaching agents can reduce enamel mineral loss (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review