Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

96 questions · 99 findings · 11 reviews · Orthodontics

No studies found 8 · 8.1%GRADE not reported 63 · 63.6%Very low 22 · 22.2%Low 3 · 3%Moderate 3 · 3%High 0 · 0%

Vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) with osteosynthesis vs Vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) without osteosynthesis

Changes in condyle position: fossa-condyle relations for posterior (1 year post-operative) · Adults (16 years of age or older) with an Angle Class III malocclusion (prominent lower front teeth); people with syndromes, clefts or…

Vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) with osteosynthesis showed no clear difference in changes in condyle position: fossa-condyle relations for posterior… compared with vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) without osteosynthesis; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Adhesive precoated (APC) flash-free brackets (minimal excess adhesive) vs Conventional ceramic brackets

Enamel demineralization (DIAGNOdent score) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

Adhesive precoated flash-free brackets showed no demineralization difference, with certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Bonded molar tubes (attached with adhesive) vs Molar bands (cemented, e.g. with glass ionomer cement)

Decalcification · Participants with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) with molar tubes bonded to first or second permanent molars; excludes prior…

Bonded molar tubes (attached with adhesive) led to higher decalcification (participant level) compared with molar bands (cemented, e.g. with glass ionomer cement); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Bonded molar tubes (attached with adhesive) vs Molar bands (cemented, e.g. with glass ionomer cement)

First time failure at participant level · Participants with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) with molar tubes bonded to first or second permanent molars; excludes prior…

Bonded molar tubes (attached with adhesive) led to higher first time failure at participant level compared with molar bands (cemented, e.g. with glass ionomer cement); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Bonded molar tubes (attached with adhesive) vs Molar bands (cemented, e.g. with glass ionomer cement)

First time failure at tooth level · Participants with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) with molar tubes bonded to first or second permanent molars; excludes prior…

Bonded molar tubes (attached with adhesive) led to higher first time failure at tooth level compared with molar bands (cemented, e.g. with glass ionomer cement); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

One-step adhesive bonding system (GC Ortho Connect) vs Conventional three-step bonding system (3M Transbond XT)

White spot lesion incidence, area, and depth · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

GC Ortho Connect had more frequent, larger, and deeper WSLs, with certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Indirect bonding using flowable composite adhesive (Opal Bond MV) vs Direct bonding (conventional, Transbond XT)

White spot lesion formation (QLF: fluorescence loss, lesion area) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

Indirect bonding with a flowable adhesive favored less QLF-measured demineralization, with certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Indirect bonding using flowable composite adhesive (Opal Bond MV) vs Direct bonding (conventional, Transbond XT)

White spot lesion formation (QLF: fluorescence loss, lesion area) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35)

A single RCT found indirect bonding with flowable composite reduced white spot lesion formation versus direct bonding (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer cement vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin)

Band failure (band adhesive loosening) · Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances with bands attached to molars (patients with cleft lip/palate or other craniofacial…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment)
    Fricker 1997 was a three-arm split-mouth trial that included a light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer arm (compared with light-cured compomer and chemically cured glass ionomer). Failure rates were reported but not…
    1 study
    GRADE not reported

Chemically cured zinc phosphate cement vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)

Band failure (band adhesive loosening) · Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances with bands attached to molars (patients with cleft lip/palate or other craniofacial…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment)
    No meta-analysis (band failure not reported on a per-patient basis). Durning 1989 (69 participants): at ~12 months failure rate 34.78% (zinc phosphate) vs 26% (glass ionomer), P > 0.05; mean survival time 470.9 vs…
    4 studies
    GRADE not reported

Chemically cured glass ionomer cement vs Chemically cured glass phosphonate

Band failure (band adhesive loosening) · Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances with bands attached to molars (patients with cleft lip/palate or other craniofacial…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment)
    Clark 2003: failure rates presented per adhesive group by number of bands failing (overall proportion of band failure 0.048 for each material); no per-patient failure data. Low band failure rates; insufficient evidence…
    1 study
    GRADE not reported

Chemically cured glass ionomer cement vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin)

Band failure (band adhesive loosening) · Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances with bands attached to molars (patients with cleft lip/palate or other craniofacial…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment)
    No meta-analysis. Fricker 1997: failure data not presented in an analysable format (number of bands or failures per person not given). Gillgrass 2001 (98 participants; 140 band pairs): 4 single-band failures with…
    3 studies
    GRADE not reported

Fixed prostheses cemented to prepared teeth after extraction or decoronation of the ankylosed teeth vs Conventional orthodontic treatment or follow-up with no specific treatment for ankylosis

Outcome not reported · Any patient with ankylosis and displacement of permanent front teeth diagnosed by clinical and radiographic assessment, with or without…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Malocclusion vs No malocclusion

Impaired OHRQoL measured with CPQ 11-14 (quantitative synthesis / meta-analysis) · Adolescents (10-19 years)

Malocclusion (DAI) probably increases the prevalence of impaired OHRQoL (CPQ 11-14) by about 15% in adolescents (RR/PR 1.15, 95% CI 1.12-1.18; moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Hawley removable retainer vs Clear plastic removable retainer

Survival of retainers (failure/how many failed) · People who had received fixed appliance orthodontic treatment

It is very uncertain whether hawley removable retainer changes survival of retainers (failure, upper and lower arches) compared with clear plastic removable retainer (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Hawley removable retainer vs Clear plastic removable retainer

Patient satisfaction: comfort (VAS, upper and lower arches) · People who had received fixed appliance orthodontic treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Malocclusion vs No malocclusion

Poor oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) · Adolescents (10-19 years)

Malocclusions probably have a negative effect on OHRQoL in adolescents, after adjustment for confounders (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Experimental orthodontic composite containing nano-hydroxyapatite (n-HAP) vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Enamel surface microhardness · Human enamel specimens around orthodontic brackets (in vitro)

In vitro, a nano-hydroxyapatite-containing orthodontic composite showed significant enamel remineralization versus control in a single study (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Antibacterial S. mutans reduction only in Farzanegan (chitosan+TiO2); Mollabashi (TiO2-only) showed no significant antibacterial effect - not attributable to TiO2 alone vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Streptococcus mutans count · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35)

The antibacterial (S. mutans) effect of TiO2 nanoparticles was conflicting across two RCTs (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review