Search

What do systematic reviews say?

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

488 questions · 529 findings · 33 reviews · Orthodontics · related questions CL0289

No studies found 117 · 22.1%GRADE not reported 263 · 49.7%Very low 65 · 12.3%Low 60 · 11.3%Moderate 21 · 4%High 3 · 0.6%

Orthodontic treatment without extraction of permanent teeth vs No treatment (or delayed treatment)

Dento-occlusal results of treatment, measured with the PAR index · Children (80% aged <= 16 years) with a Class II division 2 malocclusion (deep bite and retroclined upper front teeth)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Activator functional appliance vs Fixed functional appliance (FORSUS FRD EZ)

Final overjet · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Activator functional appliance led to higher final overjet compared with fixed functional appliance (FORSUS FRD EZ); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear

Final ANB · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear led to lower final ANB compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Late treatment (one-phase) with removable functional appliance vs no treatment

Final overjet · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Late treatment (one-phase) with removable functional appliance may leads to lower final overjet compared with no treatment (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Twin Block functional appliance vs Other functional appliances (Bionator, Herbst, R-appliance, Dynamax, Bite-Jumping)

Final overjet · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Twin Block functional appliance showed no clear difference in final overjet compared with other functional appliances (Bionator, Herbst, R-appliance, Dynamax,… (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Chemical cured composite vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin)

Bracket (bond) failure · Patients with fixed orthodontic appliances attached to their teeth

Chemical cured composite showed no clear difference in bracket (bond) failure compared with compomer (polyacid-modified resin composite); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

FMA stepwise advancement (SWG) vs FMA single step advancement (SSG)

Final overjet · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

FMA stepwise advancement (SWG) showed no clear difference in final overjet compared with FMA single step advancement (SSG); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Late treatment (one-phase) with fixed functional appliance vs no treatment

Final overjet · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Late treatment (one-phase) with fixed functional appliance may leads to lower final overjet compared with no treatment (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

FMA stepwise advancement (SWG) vs FMA single step advancement (SSG)

Final ANB · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

FMA stepwise advancement (SWG) led to lower final ANB compared with FMA single step advancement (SSG); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Twin Block functional appliance vs Other functional appliances (Bionator, Herbst, R-appliance, Dynamax, Bite-Jumping)

Incidence of incisal trauma · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment without extraction of permanent teeth vs Orthodontic treatment involving extraction of permanent teeth

Number of visits to complete treatment · Children (80% aged <= 16 years) with a Class II division 2 malocclusion (deep bite and retroclined upper front teeth)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Ibuprofen taken pre-emptively (about 1 hour before treatment) vs Ibuprofen taken post-treatment

Rescue analgesia · People undergoing orthodontic treatment (any age; 9 to 34 years in included studies)

Ibuprofen taken pre-emptively (about 1 hour before treatment) showed no clear difference in rescue analgesia compared with ibuprofen taken post-treatment; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Analgesic (any: NSAID, paracetamol, local anaesthetic or opioid) vs placebo or control

Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · People undergoing orthodontic treatment (any age; 9 to 34 years in included studies)

Analgesic (any: NSAID, paracetamol, local anaesthetic or opioid) probably leads to lower pain intensity (VAS 0-100 mm) compared with control (placebo or no treatment) (moderate certainty).

3 findings from 1 review

Ibuprofen taken pre-emptively (about 1 hour before treatment) vs Ibuprofen taken post-treatment

Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · People undergoing orthodontic treatment (any age; 9 to 34 years in included studies)

It is very uncertain whether ibuprofen taken pre-emptively (about 1 hour before treatment) changes pain intensity (VAS 0-100 mm) compared with ibuprofen taken post-treatment (very low certainty).

3 findings from 1 review

Open surgical exposure vs Closed surgical exposure

Pain intensity (0‐10cm visual analogue scale) · People with maxillary palatally displaced (impacted) canines, unilateral or bilateral (children/adolescents; mean ages 14.2 to 17.5 years)

Open surgical exposure showed no clear difference in patient response: pain/soreness score (visual analogue scale 1 to 10) compared with closed surgical exposure; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Open surgical exposure vs Closed surgical exposure

Treatment time: time from surgical exposure to eruption/bonding a bracket · People with maxillary palatally displaced (impacted) canines, unilateral or bilateral (children/adolescents; mean ages 14.2 to 17.5 years)

Open surgical exposure led to lower treatment time: time from surgical exposure to eruption/bonding a… compared with closed surgical exposure; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Open surgical exposure vs Closed surgical exposure

Discomfort/pain · People with maxillary palatally displaced (impacted) canines, unilateral or bilateral (children/adolescents; mean ages 14.2 to 17.5 years)
1 finding from 1 review

Open surgical exposure vs Closed surgical exposure

Aesthetics: canine rated as abnormal position in the dental arch · People with maxillary palatally displaced (impacted) canines, unilateral or bilateral (children/adolescents; mean ages 14.2 to 17.5 years)

Open surgical exposure showed no clear difference in aesthetics: canine rated as abnormal position in the dental arch compared with closed surgical exposure; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review