evidencegaps
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

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
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%

Chin cup (600 g force) vs Chin cup (300 g force)

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

Hybrid Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics vs Conventional Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics

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

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Mini maxillary protractor

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

Facemask (RME) or modified facemask vs Other non-surgical orthodontic treatments (mini maxillary protractor, Pushing Splints, modified tandem, Reverse Forsus, reverse Twin Block, reverse chin cup, tongue appliance, Frankel III)

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

Facemask (RME) or modified facemask vs Surgically-anchored appliance (miniscrews or miniplates)

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

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Facemask with alternating rapid maxillary expansion and constriction (Alt-RAMEC)

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

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Facemask with alternating rapid maxillary expansion and constriction (Alt-RAMEC)

A-Nasion perpendicular (A-NPerp) · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) led to higher A-Nasion perpendicular (A-NPerp) compared with facemask with alternating rapid maxillary expansion and constriction…; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Tongue appliance

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 tongue appliance; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Modified tandem appliance

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 modified tandem appliance; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Thermoelastic NiTi arch wire

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

It is very uncertain whether superelastic NiTi arch wire changes root resorption (reduction in root length) compared with thermoelastic NiTi arch wire (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgically-anchored orthodontic treatment (miniplates) vs no intervention

Perceived need for surgery in adulthood · 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

Orthodontic removable traction appliance (ORTA) vs no intervention

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

Orthodontic removable traction appliance (ORTA) led to higher overjet compared with untreated control (no treatment); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Thermoelastic NiTi arch wire

Time to next/working arch wire · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)

Superelastic NiTi arch wire showed no clear difference in time to next/working arch wire compared with thermoelastic NiTi arch wire; GRADE not reported.

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

Wits appraisal · 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… led to higher wits appraisal compared with no treatment; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Pushing Splints

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 pushing Splints; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review