evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

4 questions · 4 findings · 1 reviews · All outcomes

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 4 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Active self-ligating brackets vs Passive self-ligating brackets

Time to alignment · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Active self-ligating brackets showed no clear difference in time to alignment (days) compared with passive self-ligating brackets; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Self-ligating brackets vs Conventional brackets

Time to alignment · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Self-ligating brackets showed no clear difference in time to alignment (days) compared with conventional brackets; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Vibrational appliance with fixed appliances vs Fixed appliances

Time to alignment · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Vibrational appliance with fixed appliances showed no clear difference in time to alignment (days) compared with fixed appliances only / no vibrational appliance (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Copper nickel-titanium archwire vs Nickel-titanium archwire

Time to alignment · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Copper nickel-titanium archwire showed no clear difference in time to alignment (days) compared with nickel-titanium archwire; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review