Search

What do systematic reviews say?

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

149 questions · 171 findings · 14 reviews · Orthodontics

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 116 · 67.8%Very low 35 · 20.5%Low 11 · 6.4%Moderate 9 · 5.3%High 0 · 0%

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)

In vitro, a nano-CaF2-containing orthodontic cement showed significant enamel remineralization versus control in a single study (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Remineralizing orthodontic adhesives vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Ion release · Human teeth with early enamel lesions surrounding orthodontic brackets

No meta-analysis was conducted; most studies reported increased ion release over time, but few reported peak values.

1 finding from 1 review

Transbond Plus self etching primer (3M Unitek) vs Conventional three-step bonding system (3M Transbond XT)

White spot lesion incidence · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

The self-etch primer system had higher WSL incidence than the conventional system, with certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Opal Seal fluoride-releasing adhesive vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

White spot lesion rate and volume · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

Opal Seal showed no significant difference in WSL rate or volume, with certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Farzanegan 2021 = Transbond XT + 1% chitosan + 1% TiO2 (co-intervention); Mollabashi 2022 = TiO2-only composite (1 wt%) vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Enamel demineralization / white spot lesion prevention (DIAGNOdent, enamel mineral content) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35)

Two small RCTs gave inconsistent results for TiO2-modified adhesives/composites on enamel demineralization (one favorable on DIAGNOdent, one no difference in mineral content); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

nCaF2 primer vs Control Transbond primer

White spot lesions assessed by laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35)

A single small split-mouth RCT found the nCaF2-containing primer reduced demineralization (DIAGNOdent) but showed no significant clinical white spot lesion difference at debonding (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

nCaF2 primer vs Control Transbond primer

Photographic white spot lesion score · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

nCaF2 primer showed no clinical photographic WSL difference at debonding, with certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Experimental orthodontic adhesive containing amorphous fluorinated calcium phosphate nanoparticles (n-AFCP) vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Enamel remineralization extent and color change · Human enamel specimens around orthodontic brackets (in vitro)

In vitro, an n-AFCP-containing orthodontic primer showed significant enamel remineralization and less color change versus control in a single study (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances (exposure) vs None (single-group prevalence/incidence estimate)

Association between orthodontic treatment duration and ICLs incidence · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances, followed for development of new ICLs

ICLs incidence increased with longer orthodontic treatment duration (meta-regression P<.01; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic adhesives containing bioactive glass (BAG) particles/nanoparticles (including fluoride- or Ga-doped BAG) vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Ion release (fluoride, calcium, phosphate) · Human enamel specimens around orthodontic brackets (in vitro)

In vitro, among the 5 BAG ion-release studies only Ga-doped BAG (GaMBN, Song [31]) reported a significant increase (phosphate, up to 14 days); a general significant fluoride/calcium/phosphate increase across all 5 is not supported (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

nCaF2 primer vs Control Transbond primer

Streptococcus mutans count · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

nCaF2 primer differed in S. mutans count only at T1, with certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Indirect bonding using flowable composite adhesive (Opal Bond MV) vs Direct bonding (conventional, Transbond XT)

White spot lesion formation (QLF: fluorescence loss, lesion area) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

Indirect bonding with a flowable adhesive favored less QLF-measured demineralization, with certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Adhesive precoated (APC) flash-free brackets (minimal excess adhesive) vs Conventional brackets

White spot lesions assessed by laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35)

Two studies found adhesive flash-free brackets did not clinically reduce enamel demineralization or white spot lesions versus conventional brackets, though they reduced pathogenic bacteria (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Adhesive flash-free ceramic brackets vs Adhesive precoated ceramic brackets

Enamel demineralization (QLF ΔF) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

Flash-free brackets showed no clinical WSL reduction, with certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Clearfil Protect Bond antibacterial fluoride-releasing primer vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

White spot lesion rate and volume · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

Clearfil Protect Bond showed no WSL-rate difference versus conventional adhesive, with certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Transbond XT with 1% chitosan and 1% TiO2 nanoparticles vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Enamel mineral content · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

Chitosan and TiO2 adhesive showed no enamel mineral-content difference, with certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Experimental adhesive containing ammonium-based methacrylate monomer (MADQUAT) vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Enamel remineralization / carious lesion development · Human enamel specimens around orthodontic brackets (in vitro)

In vitro, an ammonium-based methacrylate-containing adhesive showed significant remineralization/anti-demineralization versus control in a single study (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Indirect bonding using flowable composite adhesive (Opal Bond MV) vs Direct bonding (conventional, Transbond XT)

White spot lesion formation (QLF: fluorescence loss, lesion area) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35)

A single RCT found indirect bonding with flowable composite reduced white spot lesion formation versus direct bonding (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review