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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Multistrand stainless steel 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 | No studies reported time to next/working arch wire | 0 studies | No studies |
Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Pushing Splints ANB (ANPog) · 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 1.40 [0.29, 2.51] | 1 study · 42 participants | Ungraded |
ACP light-cure adhesive vs Control Transbond XT adhesive Enamel demineralization score · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment · 6 months after bonding Can Orthodontic Adhesive Systems Inhibit the Formation and Development of White Spot Lesions During Fixed… (2024) | At T2, the control group had an average score of 4.32 (±2.32), while the ACP group continued to exhibit a lower average score of 3.41 (±1.11) (p-value of 0.000). | 1 study · 26 participants | Ungraded |
Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Facemask with alternating rapid maxillary expansion and constriction (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 -0.38 [-1.37, 0.60] | 3 studies · 97 participants | Ungraded |
Mandibular headgear vs Chin cup 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 | Arun 1994 (n=60): ANB data not usable (no SDs; Mann-Whitney); no statistically significant difference between interventions (P>0.05). | 1 study · 60 participants | Ungraded |
Surgical miniplates with facemask vs Surgical miniplates with Class III elastics 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 -0.05 [-1.24, 1.14] | 1 study · 20 participants | Ungraded |
NiTi arch wire of one cross-sectional size vs NiTi arch wire of a different cross-sectional size 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 | No studies reported time to next/working arch wire | 0 studies | No studies |
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) · 6-year follow-up Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children (2024) · Cochrane | MD -0.30 [-4.17, 3.57] | 1 study · 65 participants | Ungraded |
Single-strand superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Coaxial superelastic 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 |
Remineralizing orthodontic adhesives vs Control orthodontic adhesives Ion release · Human teeth with early enamel lesions surrounding orthodontic brackets · 14 days to 6 months Remineralization and anti-demineralization effect of orthodontic adhesives on enamel surrounding orthodontic… (2024) | no estimate extracted | 8 studies | Ungraded |
Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Reverse Twin Block with lip pads and rapid maxillary expander (RME) 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 -1.04 [-2.07, -0.01] | 1 study · 26 participants | Ungraded |
Facemask (RME) or modified facemask vs Surgically-anchored appliance (miniscrews or miniplates) 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 | SoF4: Perceived need for surgery in adulthood - Not measured. | 0 studies | No studies |
Self-etch primer bonding system (3M Transbond Plus) vs Conventional three-step bonding system (3M Transbond XT) White spot lesion incidence · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment · 2 and 4 months after treatment start Can Orthodontic Adhesive Systems Inhibit the Formation and Development of White Spot Lesions During Fixed… (2024) | Group 2 (3M Transbond Plus) had a significantly higher incidence of WSLs than Group 1 (3M Transbond XT) (p <0.05). | 1 study · 75 participants | Ungraded |
Opal Seal fluoride-releasing adhesive vs Transbond XT conventional adhesive White spot lesion rate and volume · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment · 8 weeks after bonding Can Orthodontic Adhesive Systems Inhibit the Formation and Development of White Spot Lesions During Fixed… (2024) | The WSL volume was lower in the Opal Seal group than in the Clearfil and Transbond XT groups, but there was no significant difference among the groups (p > 0.05). | 1 study · 15 participants | Ungraded |
Farzanegan 2021 = Transbond XT + 1% chitosan + 1% TiO2 (co-intervention); Mollabashi 2022 = TiO2-only composite (1 wt%) vs Conventional adhesive/composite (Transbond XT) Enamel demineralization / white spot lesion prevention (DIAGNOdent, enamel mineral content) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35) · 1 day to 6 months Can Orthodontic Adhesive Systems Inhibit the Formation and Development of White Spot Lesions During Fixed… (2024) | Two RCTs (Farzanegan 2021 n=24; Mollabashi 2022 n=40): Mollabashi reported DIAGNOdent readings significantly lower on the TiO2 side than the control side (p<0.001); Farzanegan reported no significant difference in… | 2 studies · 64 participants | Ungraded |
Calcium fluoride nanoparticle (nCaF2)-containing orthodontic primer vs Conventional primer (Transbond) Enamel demineralization / white spot lesions (DIAGNOdent, photographic scoring) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35) · 1, 3 and 6 months (during treatment to debonding) Can Orthodontic Adhesive Systems Inhibit the Formation and Development of White Spot Lesions During Fixed… (2024) | Al Tuma 2023 (1 split-mouth RCT, 31 patients / 310 teeth): DIAGNOdent scores significantly favored the nCaF2 primer at 1, 3 and 6 months (p=0.000) and S. mutans count differed at 1 month; no significant difference in… | 1 study · 31 participants | Ungraded |
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) · End of treatment (9 to 15 months) Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children (2024) · Cochrane | MD 3.05 [2.40, 3.71] | 8 studies · 345 participants | Moderate |
Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Reverse Forsus 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 0.46 [-0.90, 1.82] | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
nCaF2 primer vs Control Transbond primer Photographic white spot lesion score · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment · Before and after treatment Can Orthodontic Adhesive Systems Inhibit the Formation and Development of White Spot Lesions During Fixed… (2024) | No significant differences in the WSLs photographic scores of the control group with the contralateral nCaF2 group before and after bonding. | 1 study · 31 participants | Ungraded |
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) · pH cycling 21 days, Overall Remineralization and anti-demineralization effect of orthodontic adhesives on enamel surrounding orthodontic… (2024) | A study using an orthodontic primer containing amorphous fluorinated calcium phosphate nanoparticles showed statistically significant remineralization and less enamel color change (delta-E) compared with the control… | 1 study | Ungraded |
Single-strand superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Coaxial superelastic 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 | No studies reported time to next/working arch wire | 0 studies | No studies |
Superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Conventional (stabilised) 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 [-0.10, 0.90] | 1 study · 88 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) · 3-year follow-up Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children (2024) · Cochrane | MD -3.40 [-7.99, 1.19] | 1 study · 63 participants | Ungraded |
Intervention NR Pathogenic bacteria / plaque composition around brackets (fewer pathogenic bacteria with flash-free vs APC; comparable plaque quantity) Can Orthodontic Adhesive Systems Inhibit the Formation and Development of White Spot Lesions During Fixed… (2024) | no estimate extracted | 1 study | Ungraded |
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… · 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) | Incidence of new ICLs positively associated with orthodontic treatment duration (meta-regression, P<.01); effect size/slope not available (Fig. 6b image not provided) | NR | Ungraded |
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) · 14 days [31] and 20 days [27,28] (per Discussion); ion-release durations for [23,24] not reported, Overall Remineralization and anti-demineralization effect of orthodontic adhesives on enamel surrounding orthodontic… (2024) | Ion release from BAG-containing adhesives was assessed in 5 studies [23, 24, 27, 28, 31]; a significant increase of phosphate ion release with gallium-doped bioactive glass nanoparticles up to 14 days was reported… | 5 studies | Ungraded |
nCaF2 primer vs Control Transbond primer Streptococcus mutans count · 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 difference in bacterial count between the two primers only at T1 (p-value = 0.000). | 1 study · 31 participants | Ungraded |
Facemask vs Untreated control (no treatment) Overjet · 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 2.50 [1.21, 3.79] | 1 study · 63 participants | Moderate |
Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Facemask only 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 1.86 [0.39, 3.33] | 1 study · 31 participants | Low |
Superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Thermoelastic NiTi arch wire Alignment rate · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch) · 4 to 16 weeks Initial arch wires used in orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (2024) · Cochrane | MD -0.28 [-0.62, 0.06] | 5 studies · 183 participants | Low |
Tandem traction bow appliance 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 3.30 [2.46, 4.14] | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Indirect bonding with flowable adhesive (Opal Bond MV) vs Direct bonding with Transbond XT White spot lesion formation measured by QLF · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment · Before and after treatment Can Orthodontic Adhesive Systems Inhibit the Formation and Development of White Spot Lesions During Fixed… (2024) | The DB group exhibited significantly higher loss of fluorescence and degree of demineralization compared to the IB group between T0 and T1, with notable differences in specific quadrants (p <0.05 for ΔF and ΔF max). | 1 study · 51 participants | Ungraded |
Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Reverse Forsus 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 1.59 [0.80, 2.38] | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Multistrand stainless steel 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 | Cobb 1998 measured time to alignment but reported results only as graphs, with no numerical data | 1 study | Ungraded |
Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Facemask only 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 -0.15 [-0.94, 0.64] | 2 studies · 60 participants | Low |
Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Modified tandem appliance 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 2.28 [1.35, 3.21] | 1 study · 32 participants | Ungraded |
NiTi arch wire of one cross-sectional size vs NiTi arch wire of a different cross-sectional size 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 |
Thermoelastic copper NiTi (CuNiTi) arch wire vs Conventional NiTi arch wire Time to alignment (alignment rate ratio) · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch) · 6 months Initial arch wires used in orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (2024) · Cochrane | HR 1.30 [0.68, 2.50] | 1 study · 60 participants | Low |
Facemask 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 (9 to 15 months) Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children (2024) · Cochrane | MD 3.60 [2.68, 4.52] | 5 studies · 197 participants | Ungraded |
Facemask vs Untreated control (no treatment) Adverse effects (temporomandibular joint signs and symptoms) · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) · End of treatment / follow-up Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children (2024) · Cochrane | Mandall 2010: no statistical analysis of TMJ signs/symptoms due to low prevalence; at 6-year follow-up reported no adverse effects from facemask. | 1 study · 69 participants | Ungraded |
Superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Multistrand stainless steel arch wire Pain day 1 · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch) · 7 to 14 days Initial arch wires used in orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (2024) · Cochrane | MD 2.68 [-1.38, 6.75] | 2 studies · 127 participants | Low |
Adhesive precoated (APC) flash-free brackets (minimal excess adhesive) vs Conventional brackets (conventional adhesive-coated / ceramic brackets) Enamel demineralization / white spot lesions (DIAGNOdent, QLF) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35) · 1 to 6 months (to debonding) Can Orthodontic Adhesive Systems Inhibit the Formation and Development of White Spot Lesions During Fixed… (2024) | Two studies (Tan 2020 split-mouth, n=30; Yetkiner 2019 RCT, n=50): no statistically significant difference in demineralization between flash-free and conventional/APC brackets (Tan p>0.05; Yetkiner delta-F not… | 2 studies · 80 participants | Ungraded |
Facemask after Alt-RAMEC vs Facemask started simultaneously with Alt-RAMEC 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 0.22 [-0.68, 1.12] | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Orthodontic removable traction appliance (ORTA) 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 3.81 [3.24, 4.38] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Conventional (stabilised) NiTi arch wire Alignment rate · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch) · 5 to 10 weeks Initial arch wires used in orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (2024) · Cochrane | Conventional NiTi vs superelastic NiTi (O'Brien 1990; Ong 2011); not pooled due to clinical heterogeneity; little or no difference in alignment rate | 2 studies · 124 participants | Low |
Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Mini maxillary protractor 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 -0.75 [-1.49, -0.01] | 1 study · 32 participants | Ungraded |
Superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Titanium-niobium-tantalum-zirconium (TiNbTaZr) arch wire Alignment rate · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch) · 8 to 12 weeks Initial arch wires used in orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (2024) · Cochrane | Superelastic NiTi (Sentalloy) vs TiNbTaZr (Gummetal) (Nordstrom 2018); LII change over 8 to 12 weeks; no clear difference (ANOVA P=0.6938) | 1 study · 28 participants | Ungraded |
Chin cup 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 4.87 [4.53, 5.20] | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Nanda facemask vs Conventional facemask 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 1.29 [0.16, 2.42] | 1 study · 20 participants | Ungraded |
Coated superelastic NiTi wire (BioCosmetic, Titanol, TP Aesthetic or Tooth Tone) vs A different coated superelastic NiTi wire Alignment rate · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch) · 8 weeks Initial arch wires used in orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (2024) · Cochrane | Four-arm study of different coated superelastic NiTi wires (Ulhaq 2017); reduction in LII over 8 weeks; no difference between the four groups (ANOVA P=0.627) | 1 study | Ungraded |