Search

What do systematic reviews say?

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

613 questions · 659 findings · 29 reviews · Orthodontics

No studies found 186 · 28.2%GRADE not reported 294 · 44.6%Very low 87 · 13.2%Low 68 · 10.3%Moderate 21 · 3.2%High 3 · 0.5%

Removable appliance with palatal crib associated with high-pull chincup vs no treatment

Alteration of hyperdivergent growth pattern · Children and adolescents (over 80% aged 16 years or younger at treatment start) with anterior open bite (lack of vertical overlap or…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Orthodontic and orthopaedic treatment for anterior open bite in children 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
    End of treatment (12 months)
    The angles (SN.GoGN, SN.PP, NS.Gn) and linear measures (AFA, AFP, AFAI) did not demonstrate significant alterations between groups; interventions did not produce significant changes in the skeletal maxillary or…
    1 study
    GRADE not reported

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

Mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

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).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Success or failure of the anchorage device · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)
1 finding from 1 review

Removable appliance with palatal crib associated with high-pull chincup vs no treatment

Expansion of the upper and lower jaw · Children and adolescents (over 80% aged 16 years or younger at treatment start) with anterior open bite (lack of vertical overlap or…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Orthodontic and orthopaedic treatment for anterior open bite in children 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
    End of treatment (12 months)
    Listed among the outcome measures evaluated by Almeida 2005. No separate width/expansion estimate is reported in the text; the review concluded the interventions produced no significant change in the skeletal maxillary…
    1 study
    GRADE not reported

Frankel's function regulator-4 (FR-4) with lip-seal training vs no treatment

Patient satisfaction · Children and adolescents (over 80% aged 16 years or younger at treatment start) with anterior open bite (lack of vertical overlap or…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Dual mini-screw implant vs Single mini-screw implant

Success of the anchorage device · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage

Dual mini-screw implant showed no clear difference in success of the anchorage device compared with single mini-screw implant; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Frankel's function regulator-4 (FR-4) with lip-seal training vs no treatment

Failure to correct the anterior open bite (open bite not closed) · Children and adolescents (over 80% aged 16 years or younger at treatment start) with anterior open bite (lack of vertical overlap or…

Frankel's function regulator-4 (FR-4) with lip-seal training led to lower failure to correct the anterior open bite (open bite not closed) compared with no treatment; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Frankel's function regulator-4 (FR-4) with lip-seal training vs no treatment

Signs and symptoms of atypical swallowing and speech production disturbances · Children and adolescents (over 80% aged 16 years or younger at treatment start) with anterior open bite (lack of vertical overlap or…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Dual mini-screw implant vs Single mini-screw implant

Duration of space closure · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage

Dual mini-screw implant showed no clear difference in duration of space closure compared with single mini-screw implant; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Frankel's function regulator-4 (FR-4) with lip-seal training vs no treatment

Signs and symptoms of respiratory disease · Children and adolescents (over 80% aged 16 years or younger at treatment start) with anterior open bite (lack of vertical overlap or…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Residual overjet at the end of treatment · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Repelling-magnet splints vs Bite-blocks

Side effects / adverse effects (unilateral crossbite; transverse problems) · Children and adolescents (over 80% aged 16 years or younger at treatment start) with anterior open bite (lack of vertical overlap or…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Orthodontic and orthopaedic treatment for anterior open bite in children 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
    About 4 months (treatment interrupted early)
    "After 4 months the open bite was observed to close in the magnet group, but in four out of these ten patients, transverse problems were observed (unilateral crossbite) which led to the interruption of the treatment…
    1 study · 10 participants
    GRADE not reported

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

Patient discomfort · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)
1 finding from 1 review

Frankel's function regulator-4 (FR-4) with lip-seal training vs no treatment

Position of the incisors (upper incisor inclination) · Children and adolescents (over 80% aged 16 years or younger at treatment start) with anterior open bite (lack of vertical overlap or…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Orthodontic and orthopaedic treatment for anterior open bite in children 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
    End of treatment (about 2 years)
    The angulation of the upper incisors with the palatal plane (1/ANSPNS) decreased on average 0.3 (SD 4.6) degrees in the control group, whereas in the treated group the mean retrusion was 4 (SD 4.6) degrees, P < 0.01.…
    1 study
    GRADE not reported

Frankel's function regulator-4 (FR-4) with lip-seal training vs no treatment

Alteration of hyperdivergent growth pattern · Children and adolescents (over 80% aged 16 years or younger at treatment start) with anterior open bite (lack of vertical overlap or…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Orthodontic and orthopaedic treatment for anterior open bite in children 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
    End of treatment (about 2 years)
    Multiple cephalometric measures reported (Erbay 1995). Treated group: total anterior facial height (N-Me) +3.9 (SD 1.8) mm, upper anterior facial height (N-ANS) +3.3 (SD 1.2) mm; controls showed significantly greater…
    1 study
    GRADE not reported

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

Duration of overall treatment · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

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).

1 finding from 1 review

Pre-drilling mini-screw implant vs Self-drilling mini-screw implant

Success of the anchorage device · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage

Pre-drilling mini-screw implant showed no clear difference in success of the anchorage device compared with self-drilling mini-screw implant; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Frankel's function regulator-4 (FR-4) with lip-seal training vs no treatment

Economic evaluation (costs) · Children and adolescents (over 80% aged 16 years or younger at treatment start) with anterior open bite (lack of vertical overlap or…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Dual mini-screw implant vs Single mini-screw implant

Mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage

Dual mini-screw implant led to higher mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar compared with single mini-screw implant; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Duration of space closure · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

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.

1 finding from 1 review