Self-esteem (Piers-Harris self-concept scale) · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Facemask showed no clear difference in self-esteem (Piers-Harris self-concept scale) compared with untreated control (no treatment); GRADE not reported.
3 findings from 1 review
MD 0.60 [-2.57, 3.77]
1 study · 63 participants
GRADE not reported
MD 1.50 [-0.96, 3.96]
1 study · 69 participants
GRADE not reported
MD -0.30 [-4.17, 3.57]
1 study · 65 participants
GRADE not reported
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 facemask with alternating rapid maxillary expansion and constriction… (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Streptococcus mutans count · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35)
The antibacterial (S. mutans) effect of TiO2 nanoparticles was conflicting across two RCTs (ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review
First-time bracket failure · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)
Resin-modified glass ionomer cement showed no difference in first-time bracket failure, with certainty not graded.
1 finding from 1 review
No differences were observed in the proportions of patients experiencing first-time bracket failures when participants were bonded with either resin adhesive or RM-GIC (p > 0.05).
1 study · 197 participants
GRADE not reported
Wits appraisal · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Chin cup (600 g force) showed no clear difference in wits appraisal compared with chin cup (300 g force); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Incidence of new ICLs (proportion of tooth surfaces developing new lesions) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances, followed for development of new ICLs
About 15% of tooth surfaces developed new ICLs during fixed orthodontic treatment (pooled 0.15, 95% CI 0.08-0.26; very low certainty; extreme heterogeneity).
1 finding from 1 review
Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Hybrid Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics showed no clear difference in overjet compared with conventional Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Enamel demineralization (DIAGNOdent score) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)
Adhesive precoated flash-free brackets showed no demineralization difference, with certainty not graded.
1 finding from 1 review
Intergroup evaluation showed that there were no statistically significant differences in demineralization measurements between all sides of the conventional and flash-free brackets at all the time intervals (p >0.05).
1 study · 30 participants
GRADE not reported
Root resorption · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Streptococcus mutans count · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)
Chitosan and TiO2 adhesive reduced S. mutans counts, with certainty not graded.
1 finding from 1 review
Experimental group: significant decrease in S. mutans count was observed at the time points of 1 day, 2 months, and 6 months for both maxillary lateral incisor (p = 0.01) and maxillary second premolar teeth (p = 0.001).
1 study · 24 participants
GRADE not reported
Overjet · 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 overjet compared with mini maxillary protractor; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Pain · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Pain: not reported
0 studies
No studies found
Time to alignment · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
It is very uncertain whether facemask (RME) or modified facemask changes ANB compared with other non-surgical orthodontic treatments (mini maxillary… (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Streptococcus mutans count · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)
TiO2-modified composite showed no S. mutans difference, with certainty not graded.
1 finding from 1 review
Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
It is very uncertain whether facemask (RME) or modified facemask changes overjet compared with surgically-anchored appliance (miniscrews or miniplates) (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Association between orthodontic treatment duration and ICLs prevalence · Patients (permanent dentition) during or after fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances
ICLs prevalence increased with longer orthodontic treatment duration (meta-regression P=.01; ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review
Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
White spot lesion incidence · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)
Clearfil Protect Bond showed no difference in WSL incidence, with certainty not graded.
1 finding from 1 review
The incidence of WSLs in the Clearfil (CF) group was 8.03%, while in the Transbond (TB) group, it was 9.24% with no significant difference (p = 0.82).
1 study · 35 participants
GRADE not reported
Root resorption · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review