Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

371 questions · 390 findings · 17 reviews · Orthodontics

No studies found 88 · 22.6%GRADE not reported 203 · 52.1%Very low 38 · 9.7%Low 38 · 9.7%Moderate 20 · 5.1%High 3 · 0.8%

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

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed tooth-borne expansion (quad-helix) vs Removable tooth-borne expansion (expansion plate)

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-borne expansion (quad-helix) probably leads to higher crossbite correction compared with removable tooth-borne expansion (expansion plate) (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Multistranded stainless steel archwire vs Stainless steel archwire

Amount of crowding (change in mandibular crowding) at 8 weeks · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

It is very uncertain whether multistranded stainless steel archwire changes amount of crowding (change in mandibular crowding) at 8 weeks compared with stainless steel archwire (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Expansion plate with conventional expansion screw vs Expansion plate with spring-loaded expansion screw

Molar and canine 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

Self-ligating brackets vs Conventional brackets

Harms (discomfort, periodontal/gingival health, 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
    up to 9 months
    No evidence of differences between self-ligating and conventional brackets for discomfort (Atik 2014, Miles 2010), plaque/gingival index and probing depth (Atik 2014), or maxillary incisor root resorption (Aras 2018).…
    3 studies
    GRADE not reported

Orthodontic treatment without extraction of permanent teeth vs Orthodontic treatment involving extraction of permanent teeth

Dento-occlusal results of treatment, measured with the PAR index · Children (80% aged <= 16 years) with a Class II division 2 malocclusion (deep bite and retroclined upper front teeth)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed functional appliance (FORSUS FRD) vs Fixed functional appliance with mini-implants (FMI)

Final overjet · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Fixed functional appliance (FORSUS FRD) showed no clear difference in final overjet compared with fixed functional appliance with mini-implants (FMI); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment without extraction of permanent teeth vs Orthodontic treatment involving extraction of permanent teeth

Gingival and TMJ symptoms · Children (80% aged <= 16 years) with a Class II division 2 malocclusion (deep bite and retroclined upper front teeth)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed functional appliance (FORSUS FRD) vs Fixed functional appliance with mini-implants (FMI)

Final ANB · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Fixed functional appliance (FORSUS FRD) showed no clear difference in final ANB compared with fixed functional appliance with mini-implants (FMI); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Twin Block functional appliance vs Other functional appliances (Bionator, Herbst, R-appliance, Dynamax, Bite-Jumping)

Final ANB · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Twin Block functional appliance may leads to lower final ANB compared with other functional appliances (Bionator, Herbst, R-appliance, Dynamax,… (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment without extraction of permanent teeth vs Orthodontic treatment involving extraction of permanent teeth

Duration of treatment · Children (80% aged <= 16 years) with a Class II division 2 malocclusion (deep bite and retroclined upper front teeth)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed functional appliance (FORSUS FRD) vs Fixed functional appliance with mini-implants (FMI)

Patient satisfaction · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Fixed functional appliance (FORSUS FRD) showed no clear difference in patient satisfaction compared with fixed functional appliance with mini-implants (FMI); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment without extraction of permanent teeth vs No treatment (or delayed treatment)

Cephalometric measurements (ANB change and front teeth inclination changes) · Children (80% aged <= 16 years) with a Class II division 2 malocclusion (deep bite and retroclined upper front teeth)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Activator functional appliance vs Prefabricated functional myobrace appliance (PFA)

Final overjet · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Activator functional appliance showed no clear difference in final overjet compared with prefabricated functional myobrace appliance (PFA); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

R-appliance vs Anterior inclined bite plate (AIBP)

Final ANB · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

R-appliance showed no clear difference in final ANB compared with anterior inclined bite plate (AIBP); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review