Association between patient age and number of ICLs · Patients (permanent dentition) during or after fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances
Patient age was not significantly associated with the number of ICLs (ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review
Association between orthodontic treatment duration and ICLs incidence · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances, followed for development of new ICLs
ICLs incidence increased with longer orthodontic treatment duration (meta-regression P<.01; ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review
Incidence of new ICLs (proportion of subjects developing new lesions) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances, followed for development of new ICLs
About 48% of patients developed new ICLs during fixed orthodontic treatment (pooled incidence 0.48, 95% CI 0.33-0.63; very low certainty; very high heterogeneity).
1 finding from 1 review
Prevalence of ICLs (proportion of tooth surfaces affected) · Patients (permanent dentition) during or after fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances
About 22% of tooth surfaces showed ICLs during/after fixed orthodontic treatment (pooled 0.22, 95% CI 0.14-0.33; very low certainty; extreme heterogeneity).
1 finding from 1 review
Prevalence of ICLs (proportion of subjects affected) · Patients (permanent dentition) during or after fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances
Around 57% of patients had ICLs during or after fixed orthodontic treatment (pooled prevalence 0.57, 95% CI 0.48-0.65; very low certainty; very high heterogeneity).
1 finding from 1 review
Reported incidence or prevalence of root resorption of the impacted canine and/or incisors and/or first premolars · 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
Incidence of eruption of the PDC into the mouth · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)
Double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction led to higher incidence of eruption of the PDC into the mouth compared with single primary (canine) tooth extraction; GRADE not reported.
4 findings from 1 review
RR 1.28 [1.06, 1.54]
2 studies · 96 participants
GRADE not reported
RR 0.68 [0.35, 1.31]
3 studies · 119 participants
Very low
RR 0.61 [0.29, 1.25]
1 study · 23 participants
GRADE not reported
Show 1 more finding
Effect of severity of PDC displacement towards the midline on the proportion of successful eruptions · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)
1 finding from 1 review
Incidence of successfully erupted PDC that were favourably positioned · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)
Double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction showed no clear difference in incidence of successfully erupted PDC that were favourably positioned compared with single primary (canine) tooth extraction; GRADE not reported.
3 findings from 1 review
RR 1.64 [0.33, 8.03]
1 study · 23 participants
GRADE not reported
RR 1.09 [0.08, 15.42]
1 study · 23 participants
GRADE not reported
RR 1.64 [0.33, 8.03]
1 study · 23 participants
GRADE not reported
Any other adverse effects of the interventions, such as gingival disease and demineralisation · 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
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
Costs and cost‐effectiveness · 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
Reported improvement in the position of the ectopic canine measured from radiographs · 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
no estimate extracted
0 studies
No studies found
Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) · 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
no estimate extracted
0 studies
No studies found
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
no estimate extracted
0 studies
No studies found
Overall treatment time wearing orthodontic appliances · 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
no estimate extracted
0 studies
No studies found
Final overjet · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
FMA stepwise advancement (SWG) showed no clear difference in final overjet compared with FMA single step advancement (SSG); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Final ANB · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
FMA stepwise advancement (SWG) led to lower final ANB compared with FMA single step advancement (SSG); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Economic factors · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Number of visits · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review