What do systematic reviews say?

Probiotic mouthwash (e.g., Lactobacillus-based) vs Blank control

Probiotic mouthwash has inconsistent effects on Mutans streptococci colony counts versus blank control; the evidence is very uncertain (very low certainty).

• The efficacy of mouthwashes on oral microorganisms and gingivitis in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment:… 2023 All outcomes

  <=3 months (short-term) · Orthodontic patients undergoing orthodontic treatment (randomized controlled trials; multiple countries)
  Colony count of MS was significantly reduced compared to blank control [53]. Colony count of MS was insignificantly increased compared to baseline [33].
  2 studies
  Very low

Chlorhexidine mouthwash vs Placebo mouthwash

Chlorhexidine mouthwash probably reduces the Gingival Index versus placebo in the short term (WMD -0.45, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.20; low certainty).

• The efficacy of mouthwashes on oral microorganisms and gingivitis in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment:… 2023 All outcomes

  <=3 months (short-term) · Orthodontic patients undergoing orthodontic treatment (randomized controlled trials; multiple countries)
  WMD -0.45 [-0.70, -0.20]
  3 studies · 98 participants
  Low

Herbal mouthwash vs Blank control

Herbal mouthwash reduced several plaque-related indices, but certainty is very low.

• The efficacy of mouthwashes on oral microorganisms and gingivitis in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment:… 2023 All outcomes

  ≤ 3 months
  PI was significantly reduced compared to baseline [39; 48; 54; 58]; BBPI was significantly reduced compared to blank control [47]; TI and dental plaque amount were significantly reduced compared to baseline [45; 38].
  8 studies
  Very low

Chlorhexidine mouthwash vs Blank control

Chlorhexidine mouthwash may reduce total bacteria colony counts versus blank control in the short term, but the evidence is very uncertain (very low certainty).

• The efficacy of mouthwashes on oral microorganisms and gingivitis in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment:… 2023 All outcomes

  <=3 months (short-term) · Orthodontic patients undergoing orthodontic treatment (randomized controlled trials; multiple countries)
  Colony count of total bacteria were significantly reduced compared to placebos according to two studies [34, 43].
  2 studies
  Very low

Herbal mouthwash vs Blank control

Herbal mouthwash reduced some gingival inflammation-related indices, but certainty is very low.

• The efficacy of mouthwashes on oral microorganisms and gingivitis in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment:… 2023 All outcomes

  ≤ 3 months
  CPI was significantly reduced compared to baseline [35]; SBI was significantly reduced while MGI was similar compared to baseline [45]; BOP was significantly reduced compared to blank control [39].
  3 studies
  Very low

Herbal mouthwash vs Blank control

Herbal mouthwash showed mixed effects on Mutans streptococci, with very low-certainty evidence.

• The efficacy of mouthwashes on oral microorganisms and gingivitis in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment:… 2023 All outcomes

  ≤ 3 months
  Colony count of MS was significantly reduced compared to baseline [48]; another study found an insignificant reduction compared to baseline [51].
  2 studies
  Very low

Chemical cured composite vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  To end of appliance treatment
  It was surprising that decalcification rates were not reported as a secondary outcome, as clinically it is suggested that GIC is protective against decalcification; the…
  0 studies
  No studies found

Chemical cured composite vs Light cured composite

• Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  To end of appliance treatment
  Additional Table 1 summarises the proportion of bracket failures for a CC and LC composite with two different bracket bases (O'Brien 1989). The paper reported the results of applying a Mantel-Haenszel Chi2 test which…
  1 study · 52 participants
  GRADE not reported

Composite (chemical or light cured) vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  To end of appliance treatment
  No included studies involved a comparison with resin-modified glass ionomer cement (a planned adhesive group). The authors recommended future randomised controlled trials involving resin-modified light cured glass…
  0 studies
  No studies found

Chemical cured composite vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)

• Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  To end of appliance treatment
  The one trial article for this adhesive comparison reported the results of paired t-tests comparing different sides of the mouth. No standard deviations were presented, so we were unable to reproduce the data. The…
  1 study · 60 participants
  GRADE not reported

Chemical cured composite vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin)

• Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  To end of appliance treatment
  However the paper reported that the compomer offered better protection against decalcification when compared by a sign test (P = 0.0075) (Millett 2000). No effect estimate or confidence interval was reported.
  1 study · 45 participants
  GRADE not reported

Chemical cured composite vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin)

Chemical cured composite showed no clear difference in bracket (bond) failure compared with compomer (polyacid-modified resin composite); GRADE not reported.

• Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  To end of appliance treatment
  OR 0.86 [0.24, 2.98]
  1 study · 45 participants
  GRADE not reported

Chemically cured glass ionomer cement vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin)

• Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment)
  Williams 2005 (30 participants): a statistically significant difference in patient taste preference in favour of the glass ionomer over the light-cured composite resin (compomer).
  1 study · 30 participants
  GRADE not reported

Chemically cured glass ionomer cement vs Chemically cured glass phosphonate

• Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment)
  Clark 2003: no statistically significant difference in taste between the two cements (glass ionomer vs glass phosphonate); authors caution the finding because both cements were used at the same sitting, so the taste of…
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Chemically cured zinc phosphate cement vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)

• Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment)
  No statistical analysis. Kvam 1983 (28 participants): 4 teeth affected by small decalcification spots (reversed by polishing and fluoride), all with the zinc phosphate cement. Galarraga 2003 (40 participants): 8…
  2 studies · 68 participants
  GRADE not reported

Chemically cured glass ionomer cement vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin)

• Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment)
  Gillgrass 2001 (98 participants): comparison of change in mean enamel white spot lesion scores during treatment showed no statistically significant difference between chemically cured glass ionomer and light-cured…
  1 study · 98 participants
  GRADE not reported