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%

Any intervention to manage relapse: fixed options (labial braces, lingual braces, fixed lingual wire) or removable options (Hawley's retainer with spring elastomeric module, Bloore removable aligner, other Hawley's retainer modifications, Invisalign, Clearstep) vs no intervention or another intervention

Aesthetics · Participants who previously underwent orthodontic treatment, with subsequent crowding (relapse) of the lower front teeth (lower incisors…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Intraoral distalising appliance vs Headgear (extraoral appliance)

Number of visits to complete treatment · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or less at the start of treatment) undergoing orthodontic treatment to distalise upper first…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Root canal medicaments vs No medicaments, placebo, or a different type of medicament

Outcome not reported · Patients (mainly children and young adults) with a history of dental trauma and a diagnosis of luxation (intrusion, extrusion, or lateral…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Intraoral distalising appliance vs Another (different) intraoral distalising appliance

Movement of upper incisor teeth (mm) · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or less at the start of treatment) undergoing orthodontic treatment to distalise upper first…
1 finding from 1 review

Intraoral distalising appliance vs Another (different) intraoral distalising appliance

Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or less at the start of treatment) undergoing orthodontic treatment to distalise upper first…
1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic distalising appliance (intraoral or extraoral) vs no intervention

Movement of upper first molars (mm) · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or less at the start of treatment) undergoing orthodontic treatment to distalise upper first…
1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic distalising appliance (intraoral or extraoral) vs no intervention

Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or less at the start of treatment) undergoing orthodontic treatment to distalise upper first…
1 finding from 1 review

Fixation (splinting) vs No splint, or a different type or duration of splint

Outcome not reported · Patients (mainly children and young adults) with a history of dental trauma and a diagnosis of luxation (intrusion, extrusion, or lateral…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Any intervention to manage relapse: fixed options (labial braces, lingual braces, fixed lingual wire) or removable options (Hawley's retainer with spring elastomeric module, Bloore removable aligner, other Hawley's retainer modifications, Invisalign, Clearstep) vs no intervention or another intervention

Assessment of the alignment of the lower front teeth using any method or index · Participants who previously underwent orthodontic treatment, with subsequent crowding (relapse) of the lower front teeth (lower incisors…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Self etching primer (one-step etchant-and-primer technique) vs Conventional etchants (two-step etch and prime method using 37% phosphoric acid)

Decay (decalcification) associated with or around the etching field · Children and adults with fixed orthodontic brackets bonded to incisors, canines and premolars
1 finding from 1 review
  • Decay (decalcification) associated with or around the etching field: Only one study (Ghiz 2009) assessed this outcome but data were reported at the tooth level rather than at the participant level and therefore was not…
    1 study · 25 participants
    GRADE not reported

Extraction of the primary maxillary canine vs no intervention

Time to eruption of the permanent canine · Children with palatally displaced maxillary canines (at least 80% aged 10 to 13 years); trials with craniofacial syndromes or anomalies…
1 finding from 1 review

Extraction of the primary maxillary canine vs no intervention

Patient satisfaction and pain experience during extraction of the primary canine · Children with palatally displaced maxillary canines (at least 80% aged 10 to 13 years); trials with craniofacial syndromes or anomalies…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) with osteosynthesis vs Vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) without osteosynthesis

Changes in condyle position: fossa-condyle relations for anterior (1 year post-operative) · Adults (16 years of age or older) with an Angle Class III malocclusion (prominent lower front teeth); people with syndromes, clefts or…

Vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) with osteosynthesis showed no clear difference in changes in condyle position: fossa-condyle relations for anterior (1… compared with vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) without osteosynthesis; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Extraction of the primary maxillary canine plus cervical pull headgear vs no intervention

Prevalence of eruption/non-eruption of the palatally displaced permanent canine (successful eruption) · Children with palatally displaced maxillary canines (at least 80% aged 10 to 13 years); trials with craniofacial syndromes or anomalies…
1 finding from 1 review

Extraction of the primary maxillary canine vs no intervention

Incidence or prevalence of root resorption of the impacted canine and/or incisors and cyst formation · Children with palatally displaced maxillary canines (at least 80% aged 10 to 13 years); trials with craniofacial syndromes or anomalies…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) with osteosynthesis vs Vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) without osteosynthesis

Changes in condyle position: fossa-condyle relations for posterior (1 year post-operative) · Adults (16 years of age or older) with an Angle Class III malocclusion (prominent lower front teeth); people with syndromes, clefts or…

Vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) with osteosynthesis showed no clear difference in changes in condyle position: fossa-condyle relations for posterior… compared with vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) without osteosynthesis; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Extraction of the primary maxillary canine vs no intervention

Improvement in the vertical position or angulation of the ectopic canine, measured from radiographs · Children with palatally displaced maxillary canines (at least 80% aged 10 to 13 years); trials with craniofacial syndromes or anomalies…
1 finding from 1 review

Intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy (IVRO) vs Sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO)

Stability of correction: vertical changes of pogonion (1 week to 1 year) · Adults (16 years of age or older) with an Angle Class III malocclusion (prominent lower front teeth); people with syndromes, clefts or…

Intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy (IVRO) showed no clear difference in stability of correction: vertical changes of pogonion (1 week to 1… compared with sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Any orthodontic and/or surgical treatment for Angle Class III malocclusion vs no intervention or another intervention

Correction of prominent lower front teeth / effectiveness of treatment (planned primary outcome) · Adults (16 years of age or older) with an Angle Class III malocclusion (prominent lower front teeth); people with syndromes, clefts or…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • No included study measured the planned primary outcome. Discussion: 'The primary outcome proposed for this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments for prognathism, but none of the studies conclusively…
    Studies not reported
    No studies found

Extraction of the primary maxillary canine plus cervical pull headgear vs Extraction of the primary maxillary canine alone

Prevalence of eruption/non-eruption of the palatally displaced permanent canine (successful eruption) · Children with palatally displaced maxillary canines (at least 80% aged 10 to 13 years); trials with craniofacial syndromes or anomalies…
1 finding from 1 review