What do systematic reviews say?

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

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).

• Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces 2023 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12 months · lower arch
  RD 0.00 [-0.05, 0.05]
  1 study · 84 participants
  Very low

Bonded molar tubes (attached with adhesive) vs Molar bands (cemented, e.g. with glass ionomer cement)

• Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No other adverse events identified
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

One type of adhesive used to bond molar tubes (chemically-cured composite, light-cured composite, conventional glass ionomer, poly-acid modified composite/compomer, or resin-modified glass ionomer) vs Any other type of adhesive used to bond molar tubes

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies
  No studies found

Bonded molar tubes (attached with adhesive) vs Molar bands (cemented, e.g. with glass ionomer cement)

Bonded molar tubes (attached with adhesive) led to higher decalcification (participant level) compared with molar bands (cemented, e.g. with glass ionomer cement); GRADE not reported.

• Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  RR 1.85 [1.22, 2.79]
  1 study · 74 participants
  GRADE not reported

Bonded molar tubes (attached with adhesive) vs Molar bands (cemented, e.g. with glass ionomer cement)

Bonded molar tubes (attached with adhesive) led to higher first time failure at participant level compared with molar bands (cemented, e.g. with glass ionomer cement); GRADE not reported.

• Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  RR 2.30 [1.56, 3.41]
  2 studies · 186 participants
  GRADE not reported

One type of adhesive used to bond molar tubes (chemically-cured composite, light-cured composite, conventional glass ionomer, poly-acid modified composite/compomer, or resin-modified glass ionomer) vs Any other type of adhesive used to bond molar tubes

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies
  No studies found

Bonded molar tubes (attached with adhesive) vs Molar bands (cemented, e.g. with glass ionomer cement)

Bonded molar tubes (attached with adhesive) led to higher first time failure at tooth level compared with molar bands (cemented, e.g. with glass ionomer cement); GRADE not reported.

• Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  HR 2.92 [1.80, 4.72]
  2 studies · 190 participants
  GRADE not reported

Dual mini-screw implant vs Single mini-screw implant

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Economic factors were not reported in any of the studies comparing two types of surgical anchorage
  0 studies
  No studies found

Early loading of mini-screw implant vs Delayed loading of mini-screw implant

Early loading of mini-screw implant showed no clear difference in success of the anchorage device compared with delayed loading of mini-screw implant; GRADE not reported.

• Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
  RR 1.00 [0.83, 1.20]
  2 studies · 36 participants
  GRADE not reported

Dual mini-screw implant vs Single mini-screw implant

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No studies reported on the number of visits for the comparison of two types of surgical anchorage
  0 studies
  No studies found

Dual mini-screw implant vs Single mini-screw implant

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No studies reported on residual overjet at the end of treatment for the comparison of two types of surgical anchorage
  0 studies
  No studies found

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

• Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Reported narratively in 1 study (Feldmann 2007): limitations in daily life and jaw function were low to moderate throughout the trial with no differences between anchorage groups; impact on mood and appearance peaked…
  1 study · 113 participants
  GRADE not reported

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
  This outcome was unreported in all included studies
  0 studies
  No studies found

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) probably leads to lower mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.) (moderate certainty).

• Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes

  End of anchorage reinforcement / space closure
  MD -1.68 [-2.27, -1.09]
  7 studies · 308 participants
  Moderate

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

• Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Reported in 5 studies but not pooled due to variability in the definition of success and incomplete reporting. Success rates: mini-implants 71.43% (10/14) (Basha 2010); Orthosystem mid-palatal implant 91.30% (21/23) vs…
  5 studies
  GRADE not reported

Dual mini-screw implant vs Single mini-screw implant

Dual mini-screw implant showed no clear difference in success of the anchorage device compared with single mini-screw implant; GRADE not reported.

• Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
  RR 1.01 [0.84, 1.22]
  1 study · 25 participants
  GRADE not reported

Dual mini-screw implant vs Single mini-screw implant

Dual mini-screw implant showed no clear difference in duration of space closure compared with single mini-screw implant; GRADE not reported.

• Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
  MD -2.19 [-6.35, 1.97]
  1 study · 25 participants
  GRADE not reported

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No studies reported on residual overjet at the end of treatment
  0 studies
  No studies found

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

• Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Reported narratively in 2 studies (Chesterfield 2007, 47 patients; Feldmann 2007, 113 patients) on a VAS 0-100; discomfort most severe the evening after surgery (Nobel-Biocare onplant median 33, IQR 0-96) and after…
  2 studies · 160 participants
  GRADE not reported

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) showed no clear difference in duration of overall treatment compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.) (low certainty).

• Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
  SMD -0.25 [-0.62, 0.12]
  3 studies · 111 participants
  Low