Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

4,320 questions · 4,561 findings · 388 reviews

No studies found 1,138 · 25%GRADE not reported 886 · 19.4%Very low 1,014 · 22.2%Low 849 · 18.6%Moderate 543 · 11.9%High 131 · 2.9%

Lower lip bumper vs No active treatment (control)

Lower molars to mandible (relationship of lower back teeth to the mandible) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Lower lip bumper led to lower lower molars to mandible at 6 months compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Vibrational appliance with fixed appliances vs Fixed appliances

Harms (orthodontically-induced inflammatory root resorption) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth
1 finding from 1 review
  • Orthodontic treatment for crowded teeth in children 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
    end of alignment
    Using a vibrational appliance did not affect amount of root resorption vs control (Woodhouse 2015; 72 participants analysed). Narrative; no pooled estimate.
    1 study · 72 participants
    GRADE not reported

Self-ligating brackets vs Conventional brackets

Time for ligation (seconds, to ligate six brackets) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Self-ligating brackets led to lower time for ligation (seconds, to ligate six brackets) compared with conventional brackets; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Bone-borne expansion vs Fixed tooth-borne expansion (Hyrax)

Molar expansion · Children and adults with a posterior crossbite, without a Class III skeletal relationship, cleft lip or palate (or both), or other…

Bone-borne expansion showed no clear difference in molar expansion (inter-molar distance) compared with fixed tooth-borne expansion (Hyrax) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed bonded Hyrax appliance followed by U-bow activator therapy vs no treatment

Molar expansion · Children and adults with a posterior crossbite, without a Class III skeletal relationship, cleft lip or palate (or both), or other…

Fixed bonded Hyrax appliance followed by U-bow activator therapy showed no clear difference in molar expansion compared with no treatment; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Orthodontic treatment for posterior crossbites 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
    12 months after start of treatment
    U-bow activator 5.1 mm vs untreated 0.8 mm; P<0.001 (no SD reported); significant in favour of treatment
    1 study · 66 participants
    GRADE not reported

Semi-rapid maxillary expansion vs Rapid maxillary expansion

Canine expansion · Children and adults with a posterior crossbite, without a Class III skeletal relationship, cleft lip or palate (or both), or other…

Semi-rapid maxillary expansion showed no clear difference in canine expansion compared with rapid maxillary expansion; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Lacebacks with fixed appliances vs Fixed appliances

Amount of crowding · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

It is very uncertain whether lacebacks with fixed appliances changes amount of crowding (change) at 6 months compared with fixed appliances only (control) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Removable tooth-borne expansion (expansion plate) vs observation

Molar expansion · Children and adults with a posterior crossbite, without a Class III skeletal relationship, cleft lip or palate (or both), or other…

Removable tooth-borne expansion (expansion plate) probably leads to higher molar expansion (inter-molar distance) compared with observation (no treatment) (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

ARP with xenograft (bone graft) vs Extraction alone

Need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement · Adults aged 18 years or older, in good general health (including well-controlled systemic disease), requiring extraction of one or more…

It is very uncertain whether ARP with xenograft (bone graft) changes need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement compared with extraction alone (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

ARP with allograft (bone graft) vs ARP with xenograft

Need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement · Adults aged 18 years or older, in good general health (including well-controlled systemic disease), requiring extraction of one or more…

It is very uncertain whether ARP with allograft changes need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement compared with ARP with xenograft (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Extraction of third molars (wisdom teeth) vs No active treatment (control)

Size of the lower jaw (arch length, change) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Extraction of third molars (wisdom teeth) led to higher size of the lower jaw (arch length, change) compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

ARP with alloplast vs ARP with xenograft

Complications (e.g. discomfort, pain and swelling) · Adults aged 18 years or older, in good general health (including well-controlled systemic disease), requiring extraction of one or more…
1 finding from 1 review

ARP with alloplast plus barrier membrane vs ARP with alloplast without membrane

Implant failure rate · Adults aged 18 years or older, in good general health (including well-controlled systemic disease), requiring extraction of one or more…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed tooth-borne expansion (Hyrax) vs Fixed fan-type expander

Molar expansion · Children and adults with a posterior crossbite, without a Class III skeletal relationship, cleft lip or palate (or both), or other…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Orthodontic treatment for posterior crossbites 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
    post-treatment 3 weeks
    Gopalakrishnan 2017: Hyrax 8.00 (SD 2.19) mm vs fan-type 1.83 (SD 0.41) mm; P<0.001 (greater intermolar expansion with Hyrax)
    1 study · 12 participants
    GRADE not reported

Any orthodontic (non-surgical) treatment to correct posterior crossbite or expand the top teeth vs No treatment or another orthodontic treatment

Signs and symptoms of temporomandibular joint dysfunction · Children and adults with a posterior crossbite, without a Class III skeletal relationship, cleft lip or palate (or both), or other…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration

Harms: injury · People with permanent or adult posterior teeth requiring restoration (parallel-group trials involved children aged 6 to 12 years)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Lower lingual arch vs No active treatment (control)

Lower incisors to mandible (position, mm) at 9 months · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Lower lingual arch led to higher lower incisors to mandible at 1 year compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

ARP with alloplast vs ARP with xenograft

Changes in bucco-lingual/palatal width of alveolar ridge (mm) · Adults aged 18 years or older, in good general health (including well-controlled systemic disease), requiring extraction of one or more…

It is very uncertain whether ARP with alloplast changes changes in bucco-lingual/palatal width of alveolar ridge (mm) compared with ARP with xenograft (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review