Gap finder
Search review questions
Each row is one question a systematic review asked: who, what, compared with what, and which outcome, with the effect it found and how certain that is. Words match anywhere in the field.
830 questions in 43 reviews · Orthodontics
current versionsNo studies 186 · 22.4%Ungraded 410 · 49.4%Very low 122 · 14.7%Low 79 · 9.5%Moderate 30 · 3.6%High 3 · 0.4%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
| Question | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Mini maxillary protractor Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) · End of treatment Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children (2024) · Cochrane | MD -0.06 [-1.52, 1.40] | 1 study · 32 participants | Ungraded |
Thermoelastic copper NiTi (CuNiTi) arch wire vs Conventional NiTi arch wire Pain · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch) Initial arch wires used in orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (2024) · Cochrane | Pain: not reported | 0 studies | No studies |
Superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Conventional (stabilised) NiTi arch wire Time to alignment · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch) Initial arch wires used in orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (2024) · Cochrane | Time to alignment: not reported | 0 studies | No studies |
Facemask (RME) or modified facemask vs Other non-surgical orthodontic treatments (mini maxillary protractor, Pushing Splints, modified tandem, Reverse Forsus, reverse Twin Block, reverse chin cup, tongue appliance, Frankel III) ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) · End of treatment Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children (2024) · Cochrane | MD 0.11 [-0.54, 0.77] | 8 studies · 285 participants | Very low |
TiO2-modified composite (1 wt.%) vs Control composite in contralateral quadrant Streptococcus mutans population · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment · 1 to 6 months after bonding Can Orthodontic Adhesive Systems Inhibit the Formation and Development of White Spot Lesions During Fixed… (2024) | No statistically significant difference between the S. mutans populations on the control and test sides at any time point. | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Facemask (RME) or modified facemask vs Surgically-anchored appliance (miniscrews or miniplates) Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) · End of treatment Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children (2024) · Cochrane | MD -0.40 [-1.30, 0.50] | 1 study · 43 participants | Very low |
Fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances (exposure) vs None (single-group prevalence/incidence estimate) Association between orthodontic treatment duration and ICLs prevalence · Patients (permanent dentition) during or after fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances · During or after fixed orthodontic treatment, By orthodontic treatment duration (subgroup meta-analysis; positive association, P=.01) Distribution of initial caries lesions in relation to fixed orthodontic therapy. A systematic review and… (2024) | Prevalence of ICLs positively associated with orthodontic treatment duration (meta-regression, P=.01); effect size/slope not available (Fig. 6a image not provided) | NR | Ungraded |
Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Facemask with alternating rapid maxillary expansion and constriction (Alt-RAMEC) Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children (2024) · Cochrane | SoF5 (Facemask (Alt-RAMEC) vs facemask (RME)): Overjet - Not measured. | 0 studies | No studies |
Clearfil Protect Bond antibacterial fluoride-releasing primer vs Transbond XT conventional primer White spot lesion incidence · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment · Before and after orthodontic treatment Can Orthodontic Adhesive Systems Inhibit the Formation and Development of White Spot Lesions During Fixed… (2024) | The incidence of WSLs in the Clearfil (CF) group was 8.03%, while in the Transbond (TB) group, it was 9.24% with no significant difference (p = 0.82). | 1 study · 35 participants | Ungraded |
NiTi arch wire of one cross-sectional size vs NiTi arch wire of a different cross-sectional size Root resorption · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch) Initial arch wires used in orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (2024) · Cochrane | Root resorption: not reported | 0 studies | No studies |
Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Facemask with alternating rapid maxillary expansion and constriction (Alt-RAMEC) A-Nasion perpendicular (A-NPerp) · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) · End of treatment Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children (2024) · Cochrane | MD 1.13 [0.23, 2.03] | 1 study · 34 participants | Ungraded |
Opal Seal fluoride-releasing primer vs Conventional Transbond XT primer DIAGNOdent white spot lesion measurement · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment · During orthodontic treatment Can Orthodontic Adhesive Systems Inhibit the Formation and Development of White Spot Lesions During Fixed… (2024) | Opal Seal group showed fewer WSLs compared to the Transbond group, with initial demineralization rates of 1.3% and 3.9%, and caries lesion rates of 0.2% and 1.3%, respectively (p <0.03). | 1 study · 56 participants | Ungraded |
Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Tongue appliance ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) · End of treatment Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children (2024) · Cochrane | MD -0.60 [-1.41, 0.21] | 1 study · 47 participants | Ungraded |
Opal Seal fluoride-releasing primer vs Conventional Transbond XT primer Photographic white spot lesion severity · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment · During orthodontic treatment Can Orthodontic Adhesive Systems Inhibit the Formation and Development of White Spot Lesions During Fixed… (2024) | WSL severity in digital photographs: no significant difference between the two groups (p >0.05). | 1 study · 56 participants | Ungraded |
Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Modified tandem appliance ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) · End of treatment Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children (2024) · Cochrane | MD 0.25 [-0.39, 0.89] | 1 study · 32 participants | Ungraded |
Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RM-GIC) for bracket bonding vs Conventional composite resin adhesive (Transbond XT) New white spot lesion incidence (and first-time bracket bond failure) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35) · During fixed appliance treatment Can Orthodontic Adhesive Systems Inhibit the Formation and Development of White Spot Lesions During Fixed… (2024) | Benson 2019 (1 multicenter single-blind RCT, 197 patients): no difference in the proportion of patients with new WSLs or first-time bracket failures between RM-GIC and resin adhesive (p>0.05). No meta-analysis performed. | 1 study · 197 participants | Ungraded |
Superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Thermoelastic NiTi arch wire Root resorption (reduction in root length) · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch) · 16 weeks Initial arch wires used in orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (2024) · Cochrane | MD -0.05 [-0.14, 0.04] | 2 studies · 52 participants | Very low |
nCaF2 primer vs Control Transbond primer Enamel demineralization (DIAGNOdent score) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment · 1, 3, and 6 months after bonding Can Orthodontic Adhesive Systems Inhibit the Formation and Development of White Spot Lesions During Fixed… (2024) | Statistically significant scores in favor of the nCaF2 primer at T1, T3, and T6 (p-value = 0.000). | 1 study · 31 participants | Ungraded |
Remineralizing orthodontic adhesives vs Control orthodontic adhesives Enamel remineralization or anti-demineralization · Human teeth with early enamel lesions surrounding orthodontic brackets · 5 days to 6 months Remineralization and anti-demineralization effect of orthodontic adhesives on enamel surrounding orthodontic… (2024) | no estimate extracted | 24 studies | Ungraded |
Surgically-anchored orthodontic treatment (miniplates) vs Untreated control (no treatment) Perceived need for surgery in adulthood · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children (2024) · Cochrane | SoF2: Perceived need for surgery in adulthood - Not measured. | 0 studies | No studies |
Orthodontic removable traction appliance (ORTA) vs Untreated control (no treatment) Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) · End of treatment Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children (2024) · Cochrane | MD 6.20 [5.52, 6.88] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Thermoelastic NiTi arch wire Time to next/working arch wire · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch) Initial arch wires used in orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (2024) · Cochrane | MD 0.40 [-0.11, 0.91] | 1 study · 86 participants | Ungraded |
Single-strand superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Coaxial superelastic NiTi arch wire Time to alignment · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch) Initial arch wires used in orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (2024) · Cochrane | Time to alignment: not reported | 0 studies | No studies |
Non-surgical orthodontic treatment (any: facemask, chin cup, tandem traction bow, mandibular headgear, ORTA, reverse Twin Block, Reverse Forsus) vs No treatment Wits appraisal · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) · End of treatment Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children (2024) · Cochrane | MD 4.75 [4.15, 5.35] | 4 studies · 155 participants | Ungraded |
Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Pushing Splints Wits appraisal · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) · End of treatment Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children (2024) · Cochrane | MD 0.70 [-0.60, 2.00] | 1 study · 42 participants | Ungraded |
NiTi arch wire of one cross-sectional size vs NiTi arch wire of a different cross-sectional size Pain · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch) · 7 days Initial arch wires used in orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (2024) · Cochrane | Different sizes of NiTi wires (Alhaija 2021; Erdinc 2004); not pooled due to clinical heterogeneity; little or no difference at day 1. Erdinc 0.014 vs 0.016 inch higher pain at day 4 MD 5.00 (0.19 to 9.81) and day 6 MD… | 2 studies · 149 participants | Low |
Thermoelastic copper NiTi (CuNiTi) arch wire vs Conventional NiTi arch wire Alignment rate · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch) · 4 weeks Initial arch wires used in orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (2024) · Cochrane | MD 0.10 [-0.95, 1.15] | 1 study · 66 participants | Very low |
Facemask vs Untreated control (no treatment) ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) · 3-year follow-up Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children (2024) · Cochrane | MD 1.40 [0.43, 2.37] | 1 study · 63 participants | Moderate |
Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Pushing Splints Adverse effects · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) · End of treatment Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children (2024) · Cochrane | Galeotti 2021: occasional skin irritation on the chin and three appliance breakages (one facemask, two Pushing Splints). | 1 study · 42 participants | Ungraded |
Facemask (RME) or modified facemask vs Surgically-anchored appliance (miniscrews or miniplates) Wits appraisal · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) · End of treatment Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children (2024) · Cochrane | MD 0.50 [-1.27, 2.27] | 1 study · 43 participants | Ungraded |
Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Pushing Splints Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) · End of treatment Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children (2024) · Cochrane | MD 0.80 [-0.37, 1.97] | 1 study · 42 participants | Ungraded |
Facemask vs Untreated control (no treatment) Self-esteem (Oral Aesthetic Subjective Impact Score, OASIS) · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) · End of treatment Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children (2024) · Cochrane | MD -4.00 [-7.40, -0.60] | 1 study · 69 participants | Ungraded |
Fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances (exposure) vs None (single-group prevalence/incidence estimate) Association between patient age and number of ICLs · Patients (permanent dentition) during or after fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances · During or after fixed orthodontic treatment, By patient age (subgroup meta-analysis; no significant association) Distribution of initial caries lesions in relation to fixed orthodontic therapy. A systematic review and… (2024) | No significant association found between patient age and the number of ICLs (meta-regression / subgroup analysis) | NR | Ungraded |
Facemask vs Untreated control (no treatment) ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) · 6-year follow-up Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children (2024) · Cochrane | MD 0.70 [-0.74, 2.14] | 1 study · 65 participants | Low |
Superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Conventional (stabilised) NiTi arch wire Pain day 1 · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch) · 3 to 7 days Initial arch wires used in orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (2024) · Cochrane | MD 0.29 [-0.52, 1.10] | 2 studies · 142 participants | Low |
Superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Thermoelastic NiTi arch wire Time to alignment · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch) · 16 weeks Initial arch wires used in orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (2024) · Cochrane | MD 0.5 [0.21, 0.79] | 1 study · 32 participants | Low |
Chin cup vs Untreated control (no treatment) ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) · End of treatment Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children (2024) · Cochrane | MD 1.96 [1.58, 2.34] | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Bone-anchored intermaxillary traction (BAIMT) vs Removable mandibular retractor (RMR) Adverse effects / patient-reported (pain, self-confidence) · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) · During treatment Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children (2024) · Cochrane | Majanni 2016: BAIMT associated with higher pain early in treatment than RMR (P<0.001); RMR negatively impacted self-confidence more than BAIMT at all time points (P<0.001). | 1 study · 38 participants | Ungraded |
Facemask after Alt-RAMEC vs Facemask started simultaneously with Alt-RAMEC ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) · End of treatment Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children (2024) · Cochrane | MD 0.40 [-0.42, 1.22] | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Facemask after Alt-RAMEC vs Facemask started simultaneously with Alt-RAMEC Wits appraisal · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) · End of treatment Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children (2024) · Cochrane | MD 0.51 [-0.69, 1.71] | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Surgically-anchored orthodontic treatment (miniplates) vs Untreated control (no treatment) ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) · End of treatment Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children (2024) · Cochrane | MD 5.20 [4.48, 5.92] | 1 study · 30 participants | Low |
Facemask vs Untreated control (no treatment) Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) · 6-year follow-up Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children (2024) · Cochrane | MD 1.30 [-0.16, 2.76] | 1 study · 65 participants | Low |
Surgical miniplates with facemask vs Surgical miniplates with Class III elastics Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) · End of treatment Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children (2024) · Cochrane | MD 0.02 [-1.23, 1.27] | 1 study · 20 participants | Ungraded |
Fluoride-releasing primers/adhesives (Opal Seal; Clearfil Protect Bond) vs Conventional primer/adhesive (Transbond XT) White spot lesions / enamel demineralization (photographic scoring, DIAGNOdent, micro-CT) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35) · 8 weeks to full treatment (to debonding) Can Orthodontic Adhesive Systems Inhibit the Formation and Development of White Spot Lesions During Fixed… (2024) | Three non-randomized studies (Comert 2020 n=56; Oz 2019 n=35; Oz 2017 n=15) showed no consistent clinical advantage. Comert: no significant difference in photographic WSL severity or area, although DIAGNOdent favored… | 3 studies · 106 participants | Ungraded |
Orthodontic adhesive containing quaternary ammonium resin monomer + 40% n-ACP vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control Calcium and phosphate ion release · Human enamel specimens around orthodontic brackets (in vitro) · up to 42 days, Overall Remineralization and anti-demineralization effect of orthodontic adhesives on enamel surrounding orthodontic… (2024) | One study using an experimental quaternary ammonium resin monomer + 40% n-ACP adhesive reported a significant increase of calcium and phosphate ion release up to 42 days compared with the control group [33]. | 1 study | Ungraded |
Facemask vs Untreated control (no treatment) Self-esteem (Oral Aesthetic Subjective Impact Score, OASIS) · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) · 6-year follow-up Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children (2024) · Cochrane | MD -2.20 [-7.31, 2.91] | 1 study · 65 participants | Ungraded |
Facemask vs Untreated control (no treatment) Self-esteem (Piers-Harris self-concept scale) · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) · End of treatment Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children (2024) · Cochrane | MD 1.50 [-0.96, 3.96] | 1 study · 69 participants | Ungraded |
Opal Seal fluoride-releasing primer vs Conventional Transbond XT primer Bracket failure · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment · During orthodontic treatment Can Orthodontic Adhesive Systems Inhibit the Formation and Development of White Spot Lesions During Fixed… (2024) | No significant differences were observed in bracket failure rates among different primers, dental arches, bracket types, or sexes. | 1 study · 56 participants | Ungraded |
Reverse Twin Block with lip pads and rapid maxillary expander (RME) vs Untreated control (no treatment) Wits appraisal · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) · End of treatment Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children (2024) · Cochrane | MD 5.27 [4.04, 6.50] | 1 study · 26 participants | Ungraded |
Orthodontic adhesive/composite containing nano-calcium fluoride (n-CaF2), alone or with DMAHDM vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control Enamel remineralization extent · Human enamel specimens around orthodontic brackets (in vitro) · pH cycling 30 days, Overall Remineralization and anti-demineralization effect of orthodontic adhesives on enamel surrounding orthodontic… (2024) | A study using an orthodontic adhesive containing nano-calcium fluoride showed statistically significant remineralization compared with control orthodontic adhesives [35]. | 1 study | Ungraded |