Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

185 questions · 193 findings · 7 reviews · Orthodontics

No studies found 44 · 22.8%GRADE not reported 99 · 51.3%Very low 26 · 13.5%Low 18 · 9.3%Moderate 6 · 3.1%High 0 · 0%

Full-time clear plastic (removable) retainer vs Any type of fixed (bonded) retainer

Adverse effects on oral health: caries (lower arch) · People who had received fixed appliance orthodontic treatment

It is very uncertain whether full-time clear plastic (removable) retainer changes adverse effects on oral health: caries (lower arch) compared with any type of fixed (bonded) retainer (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Lacebacks with fixed appliances vs Fixed appliances

Size of the lower jaw (arch length) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Lacebacks with fixed appliances showed no clear difference in size of the lower jaw (arch length) compared with fixed appliances only (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Schwarz appliance vs No active treatment (control)

Size of the lower jaw (arch length, change) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Schwarz appliance showed no clear difference in size of the lower jaw (mandibular arch length, change) at 9 months compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Cervical pull headgear vs Minor interceptive procedures (control)

Amount of crowding (lower incisor crowding) at 10 weeks · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

It is very uncertain whether cervical pull headgear changes amount of crowding (lower incisor crowding) at 2 years compared with minor interceptive procedures (control) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Schwarz appliance vs No active treatment (control)

Amount of crowding (change in mandibular crowding) at 8 weeks · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

It is very uncertain whether schwarz appliance changes amount of crowding (lower arch crowding, change) at 9 months compared with no active treatment (control) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Self-ligating brackets vs Conventional brackets

Lower incisor inclination (lingual tipping and retrusion) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Self-ligating brackets showed no clear difference in lower incisors to mandible (inclination, degrees) compared with conventional brackets; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Self-ligating brackets vs Conventional brackets

Amount of crowding (lower incisor crowding) at 10 weeks · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

It is very uncertain whether self-ligating brackets changes amount of crowding (lower incisor crowding) at 10 weeks compared with conventional brackets (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Extraction of third molars (wisdom teeth) vs No active treatment (control)

Size of the lower jaw (arch length, change) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Extraction of third molars (wisdom teeth) led to higher size of the lower jaw (arch length, change) compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Schwarz appliance vs No active treatment (control)

Lower incisors to mandible (position, mm) at 9 months · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Schwarz appliance led to higher lower incisors to mandible (position, mm) at 9 months compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Cervical pull headgear vs Minor interceptive procedures (control)

Lower incisors to mandible (relationship of lower front teeth to the mandible) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Cervical pull headgear showed no clear difference in lower incisors to mandible at 2 years compared with minor interceptive procedures (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

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)

Perceived need for surgery in adulthood · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Bone-anchored intermaxillary traction (BAIMT) vs Removable mandibular retractor (RMR)

Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Bone-anchored intermaxillary traction (BAIMT) led to higher overjet compared with removable mandibular retractor (RMR); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic removable traction appliance (ORTA) vs no intervention

Wits appraisal · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Orthodontic removable traction appliance (ORTA) led to higher wits appraisal compared with untreated control (no treatment); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask (with frame internal fixation) vs Frankel III functional appliance

Wits appraisal · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Facemask (with frame internal fixation) showed no clear difference in wits appraisal compared with frankel III functional appliance; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Mandibular headgear vs no intervention

ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
1 finding from 1 review

Reverse Twin Block with lip pads and rapid maxillary expander (RME) vs no intervention

ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Reverse Twin Block with lip pads and rapid maxillary expander (RME) led to higher ANB compared with untreated control (no treatment); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Non-surgical orthodontic treatment (any: facemask, chin cup, tandem traction bow, mandibular headgear, ORTA, reverse Twin Block, Reverse Forsus) vs no treatment

Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Non-surgical orthodontic treatment (any: facemask, chin cup, tandem… probably leads to higher overjet compared with no treatment (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgically-anchored orthodontic treatment (miniplates) vs no intervention

Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Surgically-anchored orthodontic treatment (miniplates) may leads to higher overjet compared with untreated control (no treatment) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review