Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

1,954 questions · 2,335 findings · 149 reviews · Oral Health

No studies found 436 · 18.7%GRADE not reported 1,370 · 58.7%Very low 254 · 10.9%Low 173 · 7.4%Moderate 80 · 3.4%High 22 · 0.9%

Any orthodontic (non-surgical) treatment to correct posterior crossbite or expand the top teeth vs No treatment or another orthodontic treatment

Signs and symptoms of temporomandibular joint dysfunction · Children and adults with a posterior crossbite, without a Class III skeletal relationship, cleft lip or palate (or both), or other…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration

Harms: injury · People with permanent or adult posterior teeth requiring restoration (parallel-group trials involved children aged 6 to 12 years)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Lower lingual arch 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

Lower lingual arch led to higher lower incisors to mandible at 1 year compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

ARP with alloplast vs ARP with xenograft

Changes in bucco-lingual/palatal width of alveolar ridge (mm) · Adults aged 18 years or older, in good general health (including well-controlled systemic disease), requiring extraction of one or more…

It is very uncertain whether ARP with alloplast changes changes in bucco-lingual/palatal width of alveolar ridge (mm) compared with ARP with xenograft (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Combined index tests (e.g. vital staining plus light-based detection or cytology) vs Surgical or punch biopsy with histological assessment

Sensitivity · Adults (aged 16 years or over) presenting to primary or secondary care with clinically evident suspicious or innocuous oral lesions
1 finding from 1 review

Extraction of lower deciduous canines 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 lower deciduous canines led to lower size of the lower jaw (arch length, change) at 1 year compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

ARP with demineralised bone matrix, single particle size vs ARP with demineralised bone matrix, multiple particle size

Changes in bucco-lingual/palatal width of alveolar ridge (mm) · Adults aged 18 years or older, in good general health (including well-controlled systemic disease), requiring extraction of one or more…

It is very uncertain whether ARP with demineralised bone matrix, single particle size changes changes in bucco-lingual/palatal width of alveolar ridge (mm) compared with ARP with demineralised bone matrix, multiple particle size (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Coating material (bonding material or sealant) WITH fluoride release vs Coating material WITHOUT fluoride release

Initiation of white spot lesions (WSL), visual-tactile assessment · Patients of any age (11-40 years) receiving comprehensive/fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances

Fluoride-releasing coating materials do not appear to reduce WSL initiation more than non-fluoride coatings (RR 0.84, not significant); certainty of evidence is very low.

1 finding from 1 review

Light-based detection and/or oral spectroscopy (e.g. ViziLite, VELscope, Microlux DL, Identafi 3000) vs Surgical or punch biopsy with histological assessment

Sensitivity · Adults (aged 16 years or over) presenting to primary or secondary care with clinically evident suspicious or innocuous oral lesions
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

Copper nickel-titanium archwire vs Nickel-titanium archwire

Time to alignment · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Copper nickel-titanium archwire showed no clear difference in time to alignment (days) compared with nickel-titanium archwire; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Active self-ligating brackets vs Passive self-ligating brackets

Amount of crowding (upper anterior crowding) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth
1 finding from 1 review
  • Orthodontic treatment for crowded teeth in children 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
    baseline
    Only baseline upper anterior crowding reported (Pandis 2010a, n=70); evidence of baseline imbalance between groups (P=0.04); no post-treatment between-group crowding estimate reported.
    1 study
    GRADE not reported

ARP with alloplast vs ARP with xenograft

Implant failure rate · Adults aged 18 years or older, in good general health (including well-controlled systemic disease), requiring extraction of one or more…

It is very uncertain whether ARP with alloplast changes implant failure rate compared with ARP with xenograft (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Removable tooth-borne expansion (expansion plate) vs observation

Canine expansion · Children and adults with a posterior crossbite, without a Class III skeletal relationship, cleft lip or palate (or both), or other…

Removable tooth-borne expansion (expansion plate) probably leads to higher canine expansion (inter-canine distance) compared with observation (no treatment) (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed tooth-bone-borne expansion vs Fixed tooth-borne expansion (Hyrax)

Molar expansion · Children and adults with a posterior crossbite, without a Class III skeletal relationship, cleft lip or palate (or both), or other…

Fixed tooth-bone-borne expansion showed no clear difference in molar expansion (inter-molar distance) compared with fixed tooth-borne expansion (Hyrax) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

ARP with allograft (bone graft) vs ARP with xenograft

Aesthetic outcomes of future prosthodontic rehabilitation · Adults aged 18 years or older, in good general health (including well-controlled systemic disease), requiring extraction of one or more…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Lower lingual arch vs No active treatment (control)

Lower molars to mandible (relationship of lower back teeth to the mandible) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Lower lingual arch led to lower lower molars to mandible at 1 year compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review