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%

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

Overjet · 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 overjet compared with facemask started simultaneously with Alt-RAMEC; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic removable traction appliance (ORTA) vs no intervention

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

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

1 finding from 1 review

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

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 mini maxillary protractor; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Titanium-niobium-tantalum-zirconium (TiNbTaZr) arch wire

Alignment rate · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)
1 finding from 1 review

Coated superelastic NiTi wire (BioCosmetic, Titanol, TP Aesthetic or Tooth Tone) vs A different coated superelastic NiTi wire

Alignment rate · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)
1 finding from 1 review

Multistrand stainless steel wire vs Wires of other materials (conventional stainless steel, superelastic NiTi, thermoelastic NiTi)

Alignment rate · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)
1 finding from 1 review
  • Initial arch wires used in orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances 2024 · Cochrane All outcomes
    6 weeks to 6 months
    Multistrand StSt versus other materials (conventional StSt, superelastic NiTi, thermoelastic NiTi); alignment rate not pooled due to clinical heterogeneity (Cobb 1998; Evans 1998; Quintao 2005; West 1995); results…
    4 studies · 281 participants
    Very low

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

Wits appraisal · 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 wits appraisal 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)

ANB · 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 ANB compared with surgically-anchored appliance (miniscrews or miniplates) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Transbond XT with 1% chitosan and 1% TiO2 nanoparticles vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Enamel mineral content · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

Chitosan and TiO2 adhesive showed no enamel mineral-content difference, with certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Wits appraisal · 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 wits appraisal compared with conventional Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask (with frame internal fixation) vs Frankel III functional appliance

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

Facemask (with frame internal fixation) showed no clear difference in ANB compared with frankel III functional appliance; 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)

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 other non-surgical orthodontic treatments (mini maxillary… (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Bone-anchored intermaxillary traction (BAIMT) vs Removable mandibular retractor (RMR)

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

Bone-anchored intermaxillary traction (BAIMT) led to higher ANB compared with removable mandibular retractor (RMR); 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

ANB · 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 ANB compared with conventional Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review