Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

4,534 questions · 5,247 findings · 456 reviews

No studies found 1,142 · 21.8%GRADE not reported 1,503 · 28.6%Very low 1,040 · 19.8%Low 869 · 16.6%Moderate 554 · 10.6%High 139 · 2.6%

Ranked among the 5,000 newest matching findings; add words or filters to narrow the search.

Fluoride-releasing resin-based sealant vs Non-fluoride resin-based sealant

Initiation of white spot lesions (WSL), visual-tactile assessment · Patients of any age (11-40 years) receiving comprehensive/fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances

For resin-based sealants, fluoride release did not significantly change WSL initiation (RR 0.71, wide CI); subgroup not separately GRADE-rated.

1 finding from 1 review

Bonded Minne appliance (slow maxillary expansion) vs Banded Minne appliance (slow maxillary expansion)

Stability of crossbite correction (relapse of 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

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

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

Fixed tooth-bone-borne expansion showed no clear difference in crossbite correction compared with fixed tooth-borne expansion (Hyrax) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration

Fracture of restorations · People with permanent or adult posterior teeth requiring restoration (parallel-group trials involved children aged 6 to 12 years)

Direct composite resin restoration showed no clear difference in fracture of restorations compared with amalgam restoration (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

ARP with allograft plus synthetic cell-binding peptide P-15 vs ARP with allograft without P-15

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…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

ARP with alloplast vs Extraction alone

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 allograft plus synthetic cell-binding peptide P-15 vs ARP with allograft without P-15

Changes in vertical height 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 allograft plus synthetic cell-binding peptide P-15 changes changes in vertical height of alveolar ridge (mm) compared with ARP with allograft without P-15 (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Coating material (bonding material or sealant) WITH fluoride release vs Coating material WITHOUT fluoride release

White spot lesions assessed by laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent) · Patients of any age (11-40 years) receiving comprehensive/fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances

White spot lesions were also measured by laser fluorescence in 3 fluoride-vs-non-fluoride studies, but no meta-analysis was possible due to incompatible reporting.

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