Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

130 questions · 136 findings · 10 reviews · Orthodontics

No studies found 46 · 33.8%GRADE not reported 53 · 39%Very low 19 · 14%Low 15 · 11%Moderate 3 · 2.2%High 0 · 0%

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

Economic factors · 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

Double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction vs Single primary (canine) tooth extraction

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

Extraction of the primary (baby) canine (single primary tooth extraction) vs No extraction (non-intervention control)

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 extraction of the primary (baby) canine (single primary tooth… changes number of participants referred for surgical exposure of the PDC compared with no extraction (non-intervention control) (very low 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

Surgically-anchored orthodontic treatment (miniplates) vs no intervention

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

Surgically-anchored orthodontic treatment (miniplates) vs no intervention

ANB · 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 ANB compared with untreated control (no treatment) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Any orthodontic and/or surgical treatment for Angle Class III malocclusion vs no intervention or another intervention

Correction of prominent lower front teeth / effectiveness of treatment (planned primary outcome) · Adults (16 years of age or older) with an Angle Class III malocclusion (prominent lower front teeth); people with syndromes, clefts or…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • No included study measured the planned primary outcome. Discussion: 'The primary outcome proposed for this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments for prognathism, but none of the studies conclusively…
    Studies not reported
    No studies found

Any orthodontic (non-surgical) treatment to correct posterior crossbite or expand the top teeth vs No treatment or another orthodontic treatment

Signs and symptoms of respiratory disease · Children and adults with a posterior crossbite, without a Class III skeletal relationship, cleft lip or palate (or both), or other…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Any orthodontic (non-surgical) treatment to correct posterior crossbite or expand the top teeth vs No treatment or another orthodontic treatment

Signs and symptoms of temporomandibular joint dysfunction · Children and adults with a posterior crossbite, without a Class III skeletal relationship, cleft lip or palate (or both), or other…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

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

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)

Non-surgical orthodontic treatment (any: facemask, chin cup, tandem… led to higher wits appraisal compared with 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

ANB · 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 ANB compared with no treatment (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment with appliances inducing stable, permanent orthodontic tooth movement (splints worn 8 to 12 weeks and surgical interventions excluded) vs Control: no treatment, placebo, or reassurance

Patient quality of life · Adults aged 18 years or older with clinically diagnosed TMD (exhibiting two or more of the listed signs and/or symptoms)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment with appliances inducing stable, permanent orthodontic tooth movement (splints worn 8 to 12 weeks and surgical interventions excluded) vs Control: no treatment, placebo, or reassurance

Adverse effects on oral health · Adults aged 18 years or older with clinically diagnosed TMD (exhibiting two or more of the listed signs and/or symptoms)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment with appliances inducing stable, permanent orthodontic tooth movement (splints worn 8 to 12 weeks and surgical interventions excluded) vs Control: no treatment, placebo, or reassurance

Limitation of movement · Adults aged 18 years or older with clinically diagnosed TMD (exhibiting two or more of the listed signs and/or symptoms)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment with appliances inducing stable, permanent orthodontic tooth movement (splints worn 8 to 12 weeks and surgical interventions excluded) vs Control: no treatment, placebo, or reassurance

Development of TMD (onset/incidence of signs and symptoms) · People without TMD at baseline undergoing orthodontic treatment (TMD clinically absent at baseline); no age restriction provided follow-up…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment with appliances inducing stable, permanent orthodontic tooth movement (splints worn 8 to 12 weeks and surgical interventions excluded) vs Control: no treatment, placebo, or reassurance

Overall symptoms, pain and headache (relief from symptoms assessed by global measures) · Adults aged 18 years or older with clinically diagnosed TMD (exhibiting two or more of the listed signs and/or symptoms)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Early loading of mini-screw implant vs Delayed loading of mini-screw implant

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

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

1 finding from 1 review