Number of visits · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Residual overjet at the end of treatment · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Success of the anchorage device · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage
Dual mini-screw implant showed no clear difference in success of the anchorage device compared with single mini-screw implant; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Duration of space closure · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage
Dual mini-screw implant showed no clear difference in duration of space closure compared with single mini-screw implant; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Success of the anchorage device · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage
Pre-drilling mini-screw implant showed no clear difference in success of the anchorage device compared with self-drilling mini-screw implant; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage
Dual mini-screw implant led to higher mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar compared with single mini-screw implant; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Acceptability · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Patient perception: pain · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage
1 finding from 1 review
Self-reported pain on insertion (0-4 scale): pre-drilling mean 0.73 (SD 1.1; median 0.00, IQR 0-3) vs self-drilling mean 1.87 (SD 1.13; median 2.0, IQR 0-4); 1 study (Lehnen 2011), 30 participants
1 study · 30 participants
GRADE not reported
Adverse effects · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
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
ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
It is very uncertain whether facemask (RME) or modified facemask changes ANB compared with other non-surgical orthodontic treatments (mini maxillary… (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
It is very uncertain whether facemask (RME) or modified facemask changes overjet compared with surgically-anchored appliance (miniscrews or miniplates) (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Wits appraisal · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Facemask (RME) or modified facemask showed no clear difference in wits appraisal compared with surgically-anchored appliance (miniscrews or miniplates); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
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
ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Facemask (RME) or modified facemask showed no clear difference in ANB compared with surgically-anchored appliance (miniscrews or miniplates) (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
It is very uncertain whether facemask (RME) or modified facemask changes overjet compared with other non-surgical orthodontic treatments (mini maxillary… (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Dental repositioning vs Spontaneous re-eruption, orthodontic repositioning, or surgical repositioning
Outcome not reported · Patients (mainly children and young adults) with a history of dental trauma and a diagnosis of luxation (intrusion, extrusion, or lateral…
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Costs · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed or removable appliances
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Discomfort/pain · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment
It is very uncertain whether light-emitting diode (LED) photobiomodulation changes patient perception of pain and discomfort (VAS 0 to 100 mm) compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Change in angulation of teeth adjacent to the space (molar and canine tipping/rotation) · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed or removable appliances
1 finding from 1 review