Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

161 questions · 189 findings · 10 reviews · Orthodontics

No studies found 77 · 40.7%GRADE not reported 61 · 32.3%Very low 35 · 18.5%Low 13 · 6.9%Moderate 3 · 1.6%High 0 · 0%

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Total number of orthodontic appliance adjustment appointments during treatment · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed or removable appliances

Light vibrational forces (LVF) showed no clear difference in total number of orthodontic appliance adjustment appointments during… compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (placebo or no adjunct) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Ibuprofen taken pre-emptively (about 1 hour before treatment) vs Ibuprofen taken post-treatment

Rescue analgesia · People undergoing orthodontic treatment (any age; 9 to 34 years in included studies)

Ibuprofen taken pre-emptively (about 1 hour before treatment) showed no clear difference in rescue analgesia compared with ibuprofen taken post-treatment; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Ibuprofen taken pre-emptively (about 1 hour before treatment) vs Ibuprofen taken post-treatment

Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · People undergoing orthodontic treatment (any age; 9 to 34 years in included studies)

It is very uncertain whether ibuprofen taken pre-emptively (about 1 hour before treatment) changes pain intensity (VAS 0-100 mm) compared with ibuprofen taken post-treatment (very low certainty).

3 findings from 1 review

Light-emitting diode (LED) photobiomodulation vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Discomfort/pain · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment

It is very uncertain whether light-emitting diode (LED) photobiomodulation changes patient perception of pain and discomfort (VAS 0 to 100 mm) compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Low‐level laser therapy vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Discomfort/pain · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment

It is very uncertain whether low level laser therapy (LLLT) changes patient perception of pain and discomfort (VAS 0 to 100 mm) compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Low‐level laser therapy vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Patient-reported need for analgesics · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Light-emitting diode (LED) photobiomodulation vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Patient-reported need for analgesics · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Low‐level laser therapy vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Rate of maxillary molar intrusion for correction of anterior open bite · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment
1 finding from 1 review

Extraction of the primary (baby) canine (single primary tooth extraction) vs No extraction (non-intervention control)

Time taken for the canine to erupt into the mouth · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction vs Single primary (canine) tooth extraction

Number of participants referred for surgical exposure of the PDC · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

It is very uncertain whether double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction changes number of participants referred for surgical exposure of the PDC compared with single primary (canine) tooth extraction (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Extraction of the primary (baby) canine (single primary tooth extraction) vs No extraction (non-intervention control)

Patient-reported outcomes (pain, discomfort and analgesic use) · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)
1 finding from 1 review

Double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction vs Single primary (canine) tooth extraction

Time taken for the canine to erupt into the mouth · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Extraction of the primary (baby) canine (single primary tooth extraction) vs No extraction (non-intervention control)

Number of participants referred for surgical exposure of the PDC · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

It is very uncertain whether extraction of the primary (baby) canine (single primary tooth… changes number of participants referred for surgical exposure of the PDC compared with no extraction (non-intervention control) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Extra-oral pulp extirpation at day 0 vs Intra-oral pulp extirpation at day 7

Radiographic resorption (proxy measure for periodontal healing) at 12 months · People with avulsed and replanted permanent (front) teeth

It is very uncertain whether extra-oral pulp extirpation at day 0 changes radiographic resorption (proxy measure for periodontal healing) at… compared with intra-oral pulp extirpation at day 7 (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment with appliances inducing stable, permanent orthodontic tooth movement (splints worn 8 to 12 weeks and surgical interventions excluded) vs Control: no treatment, placebo, or reassurance

Patient quality of life · Adults aged 18 years or older with clinically diagnosed TMD (exhibiting two or more of the listed signs and/or symptoms)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment with appliances inducing stable, permanent orthodontic tooth movement (splints worn 8 to 12 weeks and surgical interventions excluded) vs Control: no treatment, placebo, or reassurance

Adverse effects on oral health · Adults aged 18 years or older with clinically diagnosed TMD (exhibiting two or more of the listed signs and/or symptoms)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review