Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

166 questions · 194 findings · 13 reviews · Orthodontics

No studies found 81 · 41.8%GRADE not reported 62 · 32%Very low 35 · 18%Low 13 · 6.7%Moderate 3 · 1.5%High 0 · 0%

Light-emitting diode (LED) photobiomodulation vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Patient-reported need for analgesics · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Improvement in occlusion (Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) or other validated scale) · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed or removable appliances
1 finding from 1 review

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Patient-reported need for analgesics · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed or removable appliances

Light vibrational forces (LVF) showed no clear difference in patient-reported need for analgesics during first week of initial… compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (placebo or no adjunct) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Low‐level laser therapy vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) during alignment stage · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment

It is very uncertain whether low level laser therapy (LLLT) changes rate of orthodontic tooth movement during alignment stage… compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Low‐level laser therapy vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Rate of maxillary molar intrusion for correction of anterior open bite · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment
1 finding from 1 review

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Oral health-related quality of life · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed or removable appliances
1 finding from 1 review

Light-emitting diode (LED) photobiomodulation vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Total number of orthodontic appliance adjustment appointments during treatment · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Rate of orthodontic tooth movement with removable orthodontic aligners · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed or removable appliances

Light vibrational forces (LVF) showed no clear difference in rate of orthodontic tooth movement with removable orthodontic aligners compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (placebo or no adjunct); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Light-emitting diode (LED) photobiomodulation vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Rate of orthodontic tooth movement during space closure stage (maxillary canine distalisation), mm/day · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment

It is very uncertain whether light-emitting diode (LED) photobiomodulation changes rate of orthodontic tooth movement during space closure stage… compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Low‐level laser therapy vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Orthodontically-induced inflammatory root resorption (OIIRR) during molar intrusion · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment
1 finding from 1 review

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) during alignment stage · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed or removable appliances

Light vibrational forces (LVF) showed no clear difference in orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) during alignment stage (reduction… compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (placebo or no adjunct) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Harms: non-serious adverse effects (headache, discomfort, loosening of temporary anchorage devices) · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed or removable appliances

Light vibrational forces (LVF) showed no clear difference in harms: non-serious adverse effects (headache, discomfort, loosening… compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (placebo or no adjunct); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Overall treatment time wearing orthodontic appliances · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed or removable appliances

Light vibrational forces (LVF) showed no clear difference in duration of orthodontic treatment compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (placebo or no adjunct) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Total number of orthodontic appliance adjustment appointments during treatment · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed or removable appliances

Light vibrational forces (LVF) showed no clear difference in total number of orthodontic appliance adjustment appointments during… compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (placebo or no adjunct) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Light-emitting diode (LED) photobiomodulation vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Side effects or other adverse events · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Light-emitting diode (LED) photobiomodulation vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Duration of orthodontic treatment: alignment stage (mandibular arch) · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment

It is very uncertain whether light-emitting diode (LED) photobiomodulation changes duration of orthodontic treatment: alignment stage (mandibular arch) compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Reported incidence or prevalence of root resorption of the impacted canine and/or incisors and/or first premolars · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

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

Incidence of eruption of the PDC into the mouth · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

Double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction led to higher incidence of eruption of the PDC into the mouth compared with single primary (canine) tooth extraction; GRADE not reported.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

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

Effect of severity of PDC displacement towards the midline on the proportion of successful eruptions · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)
1 finding from 1 review

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

Incidence of successfully erupted PDC that were favourably positioned · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

Double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction showed no clear difference in incidence of successfully erupted PDC that were favourably positioned compared with single primary (canine) tooth extraction; GRADE not reported.

3 findings from 1 review