What do systematic reviews say?

Open surgical exposure vs Closed surgical exposure

Open surgical exposure showed no clear difference in gum health: clinical attachment level (CAL) compared with closed surgical exposure (low certainty).

• Open versus closed surgical exposure of canine teeth that are displaced in the roof of the mouth 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes

  3 months post-debond
  MD -0.10 [-0.45, 0.25]
  1 study · 62 participants
  Low

Fixed-appliance orthodontic treatment incorporating surgically assisted orthodontics (adjunctive surgical procedure: corticotomy, micro-osteoperforation or interseptal bone reduction) to increase the rate of tooth movement vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Surgical adjunctive procedures for accelerating orthodontic treatment 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  SoF row: Illustrative comparative risks '‐' / '‐'; no relative effect; Comments: 'Not reported'. Results: 'Our prespecified primary outcome (the duration of orthodontic treatment, number of visits during active…
  0 studies
  No studies found

Fixed-appliance orthodontic treatment incorporating surgically assisted orthodontics (adjunctive surgical procedure: corticotomy, micro-osteoperforation or interseptal bone reduction) to increase the rate of tooth movement vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Surgical adjunctive procedures for accelerating orthodontic treatment 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Results: 'Our prespecified secondary outcomes of patient satisfaction, improvement in occlusion, and prolonged stability of treatment were not measured in the trials.'
  0 studies
  No studies found

Fixed-appliance orthodontic treatment incorporating surgically assisted orthodontics (adjunctive surgical procedure: corticotomy, micro-osteoperforation or interseptal bone reduction) to increase the rate of tooth movement vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Surgical adjunctive procedures for accelerating orthodontic treatment 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Results: 'Our prespecified secondary outcomes of patient satisfaction, improvement in occlusion, and prolonged stability of treatment were not measured in the trials.'
  0 studies
  No studies found

Fixed-appliance orthodontic treatment incorporating surgically assisted orthodontics (adjunctive surgical procedure: corticotomy, micro-osteoperforation or interseptal bone reduction) to increase the rate of tooth movement vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Fixed-appliance orthodontic treatment incorporating surgically… may leads to higher rate of tooth movement (orthodontic tooth movement in mm at 3 months) compared with conventional treatment: fixed-appliance orthodontic treatment… (low certainty).

• Surgical adjunctive procedures for accelerating orthodontic treatment 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  3 months
  MD 2.03 [1.52, 2.54]
  2 studies · 31 participants
  Low
• Surgical adjunctive procedures for accelerating orthodontic treatment 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  1 month
  MD 0.61 [0.49, 0.72]
  3 studies · 42 participants
  Low

Fixed-appliance orthodontic treatment incorporating surgically assisted orthodontics (adjunctive surgical procedure: corticotomy, micro-osteoperforation or interseptal bone reduction) to increase the rate of tooth movement vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

• Surgical adjunctive procedures for accelerating orthodontic treatment 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Up to 4 months
  SoF: Assumed risk 'See comment'; Corresponding risk 'See comment'; 13 (1 study, split‐mouth); Quality ⊕⊖⊖⊖ very low. Comment: 'Gingival and periodonal problems only were assesed in 1 study (Aboul‐Ela 2011). No precise…
  1 study · 13 participants
  Very low

Fixed-appliance orthodontic treatment incorporating surgically assisted orthodontics (adjunctive surgical procedure: corticotomy, micro-osteoperforation or interseptal bone reduction) to increase the rate of tooth movement vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

• Surgical adjunctive procedures for accelerating orthodontic treatment 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  24 hours to 28 days
  Results: 'Pain experience was compared between surgical and non‐surgical cases in a single study (Alikhani 2013). Within 24 hours of appliance activation and canine retraction, both groups reported higher levels of…
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Fixed-appliance orthodontic treatment incorporating surgically assisted orthodontics (adjunctive surgical procedure: corticotomy, micro-osteoperforation or interseptal bone reduction) to increase the rate of tooth movement vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Surgical adjunctive procedures for accelerating orthodontic treatment 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Results: 'Our prespecified secondary outcomes of patient satisfaction, improvement in occlusion, and prolonged stability of treatment were not measured in the trials.'
  0 studies
  No studies found

Surgical miniplates with facemask vs Surgical miniplates with Class III elastics

Surgical miniplates with facemask showed no clear difference in overjet compared with surgical miniplates with Class III elastics; GRADE not reported.

• Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children 2024 · Cochrane All outcomes

  End of treatment
  MD 0.02 [-1.23, 1.27]
  1 study · 20 participants
  GRADE not reported

Surgical miniplates with facemask vs Surgical miniplates with Class III elastics

Surgical miniplates with facemask showed no clear difference in ANB compared with surgical miniplates with Class III elastics; GRADE not reported.

• Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children 2024 · Cochrane All outcomes

  End of treatment
  MD -0.05 [-1.24, 1.14]
  1 study · 20 participants
  GRADE not reported

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

• Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Reported narratively in 1 study (Feldmann 2007): limitations in daily life and jaw function were low to moderate throughout the trial with no differences between anchorage groups; impact on mood and appearance peaked…
  1 study · 113 participants
  GRADE not reported

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
  This outcome was unreported in all included studies
  0 studies
  No studies found

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) probably leads to lower mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.) (moderate certainty).

• Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes

  End of anchorage reinforcement / space closure
  MD -1.68 [-2.27, -1.09]
  7 studies · 308 participants
  Moderate

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

• Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Reported in 5 studies but not pooled due to variability in the definition of success and incomplete reporting. Success rates: mini-implants 71.43% (10/14) (Basha 2010); Orthosystem mid-palatal implant 91.30% (21/23) vs…
  5 studies
  GRADE not reported

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No studies reported on residual overjet at the end of treatment
  0 studies
  No studies found

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

• Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Reported narratively in 2 studies (Chesterfield 2007, 47 patients; Feldmann 2007, 113 patients) on a VAS 0-100; discomfort most severe the evening after surgery (Nobel-Biocare onplant median 33, IQR 0-96) and after…
  2 studies · 160 participants
  GRADE not reported

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) showed no clear difference in duration of overall treatment compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.) (low certainty).

• Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
  SMD -0.25 [-0.62, 0.12]
  3 studies · 111 participants
  Low

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) showed no clear difference in duration of space closure compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.); GRADE not reported.

• Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
  SMD -0.09 [-0.54, 0.35]
  3 studies · 80 participants
  GRADE not reported

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) led to higher number of visits compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.); GRADE not reported.

• Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
  MD 7.01 [3.47, 10.55]
  1 study · 47 participants
  GRADE not reported

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

• Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Reported narratively in 1 study (Feldmann 2007) on a VAS 0-100; the first evening after the intervention pain was significantly higher for surgical group A (P=0.002) and conventional group C (P=0.007) than surgical…
  1 study · 113 participants
  GRADE not reported