Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

156 questions · 165 findings · 21 reviews · Orthodontics

No studies found 34 · 20.6%GRADE not reported 77 · 46.7%Very low 39 · 23.6%Low 13 · 7.9%Moderate 2 · 1.2%High 0 · 0%

Clear aligners (Invisalign / thermoformed aligners) vs Fixed appliances

S. mutans presence (CFU > 10^5) · Adults undergoing orthodontic treatment

Aligners probably lower the risk of high S. mutans counts versus fixed appliances in adults at 3 months (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.49; low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Clear aligners (Invisalign / thermoformed aligners) vs Fixed appliances

S. mutans presence · Adolescents/teenagers undergoing orthodontic treatment

A single study found no significant difference in S. mutans presence between aligners and fixed appliances in adolescents at 1 month (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.14; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

One type of adhesive used to bond molar tubes (chemically-cured composite, light-cured composite, conventional glass ionomer, poly-acid modified composite/compomer, or resin-modified glass ionomer) vs Any other type of adhesive used to bond molar tubes

Decalcification (presence or absence of decay around the attachment) · Participants with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) with molar tubes bonded to first or second permanent molars; excludes prior…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Taste preference (patient preference) · 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)
    Williams 2005 (30 participants): a statistically significant difference in patient taste preference in favour of the glass ionomer over the light-cured composite resin (compomer).
    1 study · 30 participants
    GRADE not reported

Chemically cured glass ionomer cement vs Chemically cured glass phosphonate

Taste preference (patient preference) · 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: no statistically significant difference in taste between the two cements (glass ionomer vs glass phosphonate); authors caution the finding because both cements were used at the same sitting, so the taste of…
    1 study
    GRADE not reported

Extraction of the primary maxillary canine plus cervical pull headgear vs no intervention

Prevalence of eruption/non-eruption of the palatally displaced permanent canine (successful eruption) · Children with palatally displaced maxillary canines (at least 80% aged 10 to 13 years); trials with craniofacial syndromes or anomalies…
1 finding from 1 review

Extraction of the primary maxillary canine vs no intervention

Incidence or prevalence of root resorption of the impacted canine and/or incisors and cyst formation · Children with palatally displaced maxillary canines (at least 80% aged 10 to 13 years); trials with craniofacial syndromes or anomalies…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Extraction of the primary maxillary canine plus cervical pull headgear vs Extraction of the primary maxillary canine alone

Prevalence of eruption/non-eruption of the palatally displaced permanent canine (successful eruption) · Children with palatally displaced maxillary canines (at least 80% aged 10 to 13 years); trials with craniofacial syndromes or anomalies…
1 finding from 1 review

Extraction of the primary maxillary canine vs no intervention

Prevalence of eruption/non-eruption of the palatally displaced permanent canine (successful eruption) · Children with palatally displaced maxillary canines (at least 80% aged 10 to 13 years); trials with craniofacial syndromes or anomalies…
1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride-releasing glass ionomer-based bonding agent vs Non-fluoride glass ionomer-based bonding agent

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 a glass-ionomer-based bonding agent (single study), fluoride release significantly reduced WSL initiation (RR 0.64); subgroup not separately GRADE-rated.

1 finding from 1 review

Sealant/coating agent WITH fluoride release applied to teeth with fixed appliances vs No sealant (control/no treatment)

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

Among fluoride-releasing sealants, the reduction in WSL initiation versus no sealant was not statistically significant (RR 0.69); subgroup not separately GRADE-rated.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Initiation of white spot lesions (WSL), visual-tactile assessment · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)

Fluoride-releasing coating material did not show a statistically significant reduction in new white spot lesions versus non-fluoride coating (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Glass ionomer cement vs Resin adhesive

Initiation of white spot lesions (WSL), visual-tactile assessment · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)

Glass ionomer cement did not show a statistically significant difference in new white spot lesions versus resin adhesive (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Glass ionomer cement (for bracket bonding) vs Resin adhesive

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

There is no clear difference in WSL initiation between glass ionomer cement and resin adhesive for bracket bonding (RR 0.72, not significant); certainty of evidence is very low.

1 finding from 1 review

Sealant (any type) vs No sealant (control/no treatment)

Initiation of white spot lesions (WSL), visual-tactile assessment · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)

Sealant use reduced the incidence of new white spot lesions versus no sealant (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Compomer (polyacid-modified composite, fluoride-releasing) for bonding brackets vs Compomer bonding agent without fluoride release

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 compomer-based bonding agents, fluoride release did not significantly change WSL initiation (RR 0.71); subgroup not separately GRADE-rated.

1 finding from 1 review

Sealant/coating agent WITHOUT fluoride release applied to teeth with fixed appliances vs No sealant (control/no treatment)

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

Among non-fluoride sealants, WSL initiation was significantly reduced versus no sealant (RR 0.69); subgroup not separately GRADE-rated.

1 finding from 1 review

Sealant or coating agent (with or without fluoride release) applied to teeth with fixed appliances vs No sealant (control/no treatment)

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 sealant-vs-no-sealant studies, but no meta-analysis was possible due to incompatible reporting.

1 finding from 1 review

Compomer (polyacid-modified composite, fluoride-releasing) for bonding brackets vs Compomer bonding agent without fluoride release

Initiation of white spot lesions (WSL), visual-tactile assessment · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)

Fluoride-releasing compomer bonding agent did not show a statistically significant reduction in new white spot lesions versus non-fluoride compomer bonding agent (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

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