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%

Surgical miniplates with facemask vs Surgical miniplates with Class III elastics

ANB · 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 ANB compared with surgical miniplates with Class III elastics; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Remineralizing orthodontic adhesives vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Ion release · Human teeth with early enamel lesions surrounding orthodontic brackets

No meta-analysis was conducted; most studies reported increased ion release over time, but few reported peak values.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Reverse Twin Block with lip pads and rapid maxillary expander (RME)

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

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) led to lower ANB compared with reverse Twin Block with lip pads and rapid maxillary expander (RME); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

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

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

Non-surgical orthodontic treatment (any: facemask, chin cup, tandem traction bow, mandibular headgear, ORTA, reverse Twin Block, Reverse Forsus) vs no treatment

ANB · 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… probably leads to higher ANB compared with no treatment (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Reverse Forsus

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 reverse Forsus; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Conventional (stabilised) 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 conventional (stabilised) NiTi arch wire; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic adhesives containing bioactive glass (BAG) particles/nanoparticles (including fluoride- or Ga-doped BAG) vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Ion release (fluoride, calcium, phosphate) · Human enamel specimens around orthodontic brackets (in vitro)

In vitro, among the 5 BAG ion-release studies only Ga-doped BAG (GaMBN, Song [31]) reported a significant increase (phosphate, up to 14 days); a general significant fluoride/calcium/phosphate increase across all 5 is not supported (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Facemask only

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

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) may leads to higher overjet compared with facemask only (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Tandem traction bow appliance vs no intervention

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

Tandem traction bow appliance led to higher overjet compared with untreated control (no treatment); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Reverse Forsus

ANB · 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 compared with reverse Forsus; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Facemask only

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 facemask only (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Overjet · 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 overjet compared with modified tandem appliance; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

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

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

Thermoelastic copper NiTi (CuNiTi) arch wire showed no clear difference in time to alignment (alignment rate ratio) compared with conventional NiTi arch wire (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review