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%

NiTi arch wire of one cross-sectional size vs NiTi arch wire of a different cross-sectional size

Pain · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)
1 finding from 1 review
  • Different sizes of NiTi wires (Alhaija 2021; Erdinc 2004); not pooled due to clinical heterogeneity; little or no difference at day 1. Erdinc 0.014 vs 0.016 inch higher pain at day 4 MD 5.00 (0.19 to 9.81) and day 6 MD…
    2 studies · 149 participants
    Low

Thermoelastic copper NiTi (CuNiTi) arch wire vs Conventional (stabilised) NiTi arch wire

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

It is very uncertain whether thermoelastic copper NiTi (CuNiTi) arch wire changes alignment rate compared with conventional NiTi arch wire (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask vs no intervention

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

Facemask probably leads to higher ANB compared with untreated control (no treatment) (moderate certainty).

3 findings from 1 review

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

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

Facemask (RME) or modified facemask showed no clear difference in wits appraisal compared with surgically-anchored appliance (miniscrews or miniplates); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Pushing Splints

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 pushing Splints; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask vs no intervention

Self-esteem (Oral Aesthetic Subjective Impact Score, OASIS) · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Facemask led to lower self-esteem (Oral Aesthetic Subjective Impact Score, OASIS) compared with untreated control (no treatment); GRADE not reported.

3 findings from 1 review

Superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Conventional (stabilised) NiTi arch wire

Pain day 1 · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)

Superelastic NiTi arch wire showed no clear difference in pain day 1 compared with conventional (stabilised) NiTi arch wire (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask after Alt-RAMEC vs Facemask started simultaneously with Alt-RAMEC

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

Facemask after Alt-RAMEC showed no clear difference in ANB compared with facemask started simultaneously with Alt-RAMEC; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask after Alt-RAMEC vs Facemask started simultaneously with Alt-RAMEC

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

Facemask after Alt-RAMEC showed no clear difference in wits appraisal compared with facemask started simultaneously with Alt-RAMEC; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgically-anchored orthodontic treatment (miniplates) vs no intervention

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

Surgically-anchored orthodontic treatment (miniplates) may leads to higher ANB compared with untreated control (no treatment) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical miniplates with facemask vs Surgical miniplates with Class III elastics

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

Surgical miniplates with facemask showed no clear difference in overjet compared with surgical miniplates with Class III elastics; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic adhesive containing quaternary ammonium resin monomer + 40% n-ACP vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Calcium and phosphate ion release · Human enamel specimens around orthodontic brackets (in vitro)

In vitro, an n-ACP-containing adhesive significantly increased calcium and phosphate ion release up to 42 days in a single study (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Opal Seal fluoride-releasing primer vs Conventional Transbond XT primer

Bracket (bond) failure · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

Opal Seal showed no difference in bracket failure, with certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Reverse Twin Block with lip pads and rapid maxillary expander (RME) vs no intervention

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

Reverse Twin Block with lip pads and rapid maxillary expander (RME) led to higher wits appraisal compared with untreated control (no treatment); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Pushing Splints

ANB (ANPog) · 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 ANB (ANPog) compared with pushing Splints; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

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

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 facemask with alternating rapid maxillary expansion and constriction…; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review