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%

Experimental chewing adjuncts (bite wafers or chewing gum) vs No chewing gum, placebo, or control (no adjunct)

Quality of life or patient satisfaction · Adolescents/teenagers undergoing orthodontic treatment

Experimental chewing adjuncts (bite wafers or chewing gum) led to lower quality of life or patient satisfaction compared with no chewing gum, placebo, or control (no adjunct); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Chemically cured glass ionomer cement vs Chemically cured glass phosphonate

Band failure (band adhesive loosening) · Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances with bands attached to molars (patients with cleft lip/palate or other craniofacial…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment)
    Clark 2003: failure rates presented per adhesive group by number of bands failing (overall proportion of band failure 0.048 for each material); no per-patient failure data. Low band failure rates; insufficient evidence…
    1 study
    GRADE not reported

Zinc silicophosphate cement vs Any other orthodontic band adhesive

Outcome not reported · Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances with bands attached to molars (patients with cleft lip/palate or other craniofacial…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Experimental chewing adjuncts (bite wafers or chewing gum) vs No chewing gum, placebo, or control (no adjunct)

Dose/intensity and frequency of pain relief needed (analgesic/rescue medication use) · Adolescents/teenagers undergoing orthodontic treatment
1 finding from 1 review

Chemically cured glass ionomer cement vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin)

Band failure (band adhesive loosening) · Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances with bands attached to molars (patients with cleft lip/palate or other craniofacial…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment)
    No meta-analysis. Fricker 1997: failure data not presented in an analysable format (number of bands or failures per person not given). Gillgrass 2001 (98 participants; 140 band pairs): 4 single-band failures with…
    3 studies
    GRADE not reported

Orthodontic appliances (palatal crib) vs no treatment

Occlusion (change in maxillary arch length, short term) · Children with a non-nutritive sucking habit (digit or pacifier)
1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic appliances (palatal crib) vs no treatment

Adverse events · Children with a non-nutritive sucking habit (digit or pacifier)
1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic appliances (palatal crib) vs no treatment

Sucking cessation (long term) · Children with a non-nutritive sucking habit (digit or pacifier)

Orthodontic appliances (palatal crib) led to higher sucking cessation (long term) compared with no treatment; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Repositioning of ankylosed teeth after osteotomy followed or not by distraction osteogenesis, or after luxation vs Conventional orthodontic treatment or follow-up with no specific treatment for ankylosis

Outcome not reported · Any patient with ankylosis and displacement of permanent front teeth diagnosed by clinical and radiographic assessment, with or without…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Palatal arch vs Palatal crib (alternative orthodontic appliance)

Sucking cessation (short term) · Children with a non-nutritive sucking habit (digit or pacifier)

It is very uncertain whether palatal arch changes sucking cessation (short term) compared with palatal crib (alternative orthodontic appliance) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed-appliance orthodontic treatment incorporating surgically assisted orthodontics (adjunctive surgical procedure: corticotomy, micro-osteoperforation or interseptal bone reduction) to increase the rate of tooth movement vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Duration of orthodontic treatment, number of visits during active treatment (scheduled and unscheduled) and duration of visits · Individuals of any age receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (braces) (people requiring orthodontic tooth movement);…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Pacifier withdrawal vs No treatment

Outcome not reported · Children with a non-nutritive sucking habit (digit or pacifier)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic appliances (palatal crib) vs no treatment

Sucking cessation (short term) · Children with a non-nutritive sucking habit (digit or pacifier)

Orthodontic appliances (palatal arch/palatal crib) may leads to higher sucking cessation (short term) compared with no treatment (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic appliances (palatal crib) vs no treatment

Occlusion (net change in overjet, short term) · Children with a non-nutritive sucking habit (digit or pacifier)
1 finding from 1 review
  • Table 1 (reduction in malocclusion), Villa 1997 (n=24), palatal crib vs no treatment: net change in overjet (mm) - no treatment 0.02; palatal crib -0.2; no statistically significant net change in overjet between…
    1 study · 24 participants
    GRADE not reported

Psychological intervention + orthodontic treatment (palatal crib or palatal arch) vs no treatment

Adverse events · Children with a non-nutritive sucking habit (digit or pacifier)
1 finding from 1 review

Fixed-appliance orthodontic treatment incorporating surgically assisted orthodontics (adjunctive surgical procedure: corticotomy, micro-osteoperforation or interseptal bone reduction) to increase the rate of tooth movement vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Patient satisfaction with treatment Measured by a validated scale · Individuals of any age receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (braces) (people requiring orthodontic tooth movement);…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Psychological intervention + palatal arch vs Psychological intervention + palatal crib

Sucking cessation (short term) · Children with a non-nutritive sucking habit (digit or pacifier)

Psychological intervention + palatal arch led to lower sucking cessation (short term) compared with psychological intervention + palatal crib; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Aversive tasting substance applied to digit vs Psychological intervention (habit reversal)

Sucking cessation (short term) · Children with a non-nutritive sucking habit (digit or pacifier)

Aversive tasting substance applied to digit showed no clear difference in sucking cessation (short term) compared with psychological intervention (habit reversal); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review