Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Reverse Forsus led to higher overjet compared with untreated control (no treatment); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
ANB · 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 ANB compared with chin cup (300 g force); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Alignment rate · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Perceived need for surgery in adulthood · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Facemask may leads to higher perceived need for surgery in adulthood compared with untreated control (no treatment) (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Root resorption · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Time to alignment · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Root resorption · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Patient satisfaction · People who had received fixed appliance orthodontic treatment
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Not measured
0 studies
No studies found
Patient satisfaction (measured by patient satisfaction or aesthetic scales) · People who had received fixed appliance orthodontic treatment
It is very uncertain whether fibre-reinforced composite fixed (bonded) retainer changes patient satisfaction: aesthetics (VAS 0-10 cm, lower arch) compared with multistrand / spiral wire fixed (bonded) retainer (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Patient satisfaction: discomfort/pain (lower arch) · People who had received fixed appliance orthodontic treatment
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Stability: Little's Irregularity Index (lower arch) · People who had received fixed appliance orthodontic treatment
It is very uncertain whether part-time clear plastic (removable) retainer changes stability: Little's Irregularity Index (lower arch) compared with any type of fixed (bonded) retainer (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Stability: Little's Irregularity Index (lower arch) · People who had received fixed appliance orthodontic treatment
Upper clear plastic retainer + lower fixed canine-to-canine retainer showed no clear difference in stability: Little's Irregularity Index (lower arch) compared with upper clear plastic retainer + lower interproximal reduction…; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Discomfort/pain · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment
It is very uncertain whether light-emitting diode (LED) photobiomodulation changes patient perception of pain and discomfort (VAS 0 to 100 mm) compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Change in angulation of teeth adjacent to the space (molar and canine tipping/rotation) · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed or removable appliances
1 finding from 1 review
Stability: Little's Irregularity Index · People who had received fixed appliance orthodontic treatment
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
3 studies
GRADE not reported
Discomfort/pain · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed or removable appliances
Light vibrational forces (LVF) showed no clear difference in patient perception of pain and discomfort (VAS 0 to 100 mm),… compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (placebo or no adjunct) (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Survival of retainers (failure, lower arch) · People who had received fixed appliance orthodontic treatment
It is very uncertain whether CAD/CAM nitinol fixed (bonded) retainer changes survival of retainers (failure, lower arch) compared with conventional/analogue multistrand fixed (bonded) retainer (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Survival of retainers (failure, lower arch) · People who had received fixed appliance orthodontic treatment
It is very uncertain whether full-time clear plastic (removable) retainer changes survival of retainers (failure, lower arch) compared with any type of fixed (bonded) retainer (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Survival of retainers (failure, lower arch) · People who had received fixed appliance orthodontic treatment
Fibre-reinforced composite fixed (bonded) retainer showed no clear difference in survival of retainers (failure, lower arch) compared with multistrand / spiral wire fixed (bonded) retainer (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Survival of retainers (failure, lower arch) · People who had received fixed appliance orthodontic treatment
It is very uncertain whether part-time clear plastic (removable) retainer changes survival of retainers (failure, lower arch) compared with any type of fixed (bonded) retainer (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review