Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

369 questions · 463 findings · 41 reviews · Oral Health

No studies found 44 · 9.5%GRADE not reported 336 · 72.6%Very low 31 · 6.7%Low 26 · 5.6%Moderate 15 · 3.2%High 11 · 2.4%

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

Stability: Little's Irregularity Index (lower arch) · People who had received fixed appliance orthodontic treatment

It is very uncertain whether full-time clear plastic (removable) retainer changes stability: Little's Irregularity Index (lower arch) compared with any type of fixed (bonded) retainer (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Fibre-reinforced composite fixed (bonded) retainer vs Multistrand / spiral wire fixed (bonded) retainer

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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Oral-health promotion programs (OHPPs): community-based oral-health education/training, supervised toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste and topical fluoride, dental screening, and dietary advice vs No oral-health promotion program, or a differing (usual-care) action under similar conditions

Cost‐effectiveness · Children aged 6 years and older (healthy except for dental caries)

In children aged 6 years and older, the cost-effectiveness estimate was extremely imprecise and not significant (OR 0.00, 95% CI 0.00 to 48704.6; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Bilateral extraction of compromised mandibular first permanent molars vs Age- and gender-matched non-extraction controls

Lower incisor inclination (lingual tipping and retrusion) · Children (approximately 11 years or older) with compromised mandibular first permanent molars

Bilateral lower first permanent molar extraction was associated with lingual tipping and retrusion of the lower incisors in one case-control study; ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Alginate (two stage-two step final/wash impression) vs Silicone elastomer (two stage-two step)

Oral health-related quality of life · Completely edentulous people

Alginate (two stage-two step final/wash impression) may leads to higher participant-reported oral health-related quality of life… compared with silicone elastomer (two stage-two step) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Vitamin D vs placebo or control

Performance measures: lower extremity strength · Older or community-dwelling adults

Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Performance measures: lower extremity strength, Older adults: SMD 0.05 (95% CI -0.11 to 0.20), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Substantial effect unlikely.

1 finding from 1 review

Preprosthetic surgery for a conventional denture (PPS) vs Implant retained overdenture (dental implants) (IRO)

Altered chin or lower lip skin sensation (binary) · Edentulous patients requiring improved denture retention

Preprosthetic surgery for a conventional denture (PPS) led to lower morbidity: altered sensation of the lower lip and chin compared with implant retained overdenture (dental implants) (IRO); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Preprosthetic surgery for a conventional denture (PPS) vs Implant retained overdenture (dental implants) (IRO)

Dissatisfied with lower denture · Edentulous patients requiring improved denture retention

Preprosthetic surgery for a conventional denture (PPS) showed no clear difference in dissatisfied with lower denture compared with implant retained overdenture (dental implants) (IRO); 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