What do systematic reviews say?

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Light vibrational forces (LVF) showed no clear difference in harms: non-serious adverse effects (headache, discomfort, loosening… compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (placebo or no adjunct); GRADE not reported.

• Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment 2023 · Cochrane All outcomes
  RR 0.96 [0.32, 2.85]
  1 study · 45 participants
  GRADE not reported

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

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).

• Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment 2023 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Immediately after ligation of initial archwire (also 4-8h, 1, 3, 7 days)
  MD 2.56 [-2.35, 7.47]
  3 studies · 153 participants
  Low

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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for managing relapse of the lower front teeth after orthodontic treatment 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No RCTs met the inclusion criteria for this review. After deduplication, the electronic searching identified 527 publications; after reviewing the titles and abstracts, none focused on interventions to correct the…
  0 studies
  No studies found

Light-emitting diode (LED) photobiomodulation vs Conventional 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).

• Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment 2023 · Cochrane All outcomes

  First visit
  MD -0.80 [-2.20, 0.62]
  1 study · 39 participants
  Very low

Low‐level laser therapy vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

It is very uncertain whether low level laser therapy (LLLT) changes patient perception of pain and discomfort (VAS 0 to 100 mm) compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (very low certainty).

• Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment 2023 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Space closure / first visit
  MD -0.4 [-1.87, 1.07]
  1 study · 37 participants
  Very low

Extraction of the primary (baby) canine (single primary tooth extraction) vs No extraction (non-intervention control)

• Interventions for promoting the eruption of palatally displaced permanent canine teeth, without the need for surgical… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Evening after extraction and one week later
  Self-reported VAS pain (Naoumova 2012): pain and discomfort from extraction of the primary canine were low both during and after the procedure and mostly absent at one week; 35% of boys and 50% of girls took one dose…
  1 study · 44 participants
  GRADE not reported