evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

2,355 questions · 2,459 findings · 279 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 556 · 22.6%GRADE not reported 490 · 19.9%Very low 593 · 24.1%Low 479 · 19.5%Moderate 243 · 9.9%High 98 · 4%

ACP light-cure adhesive vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Enamel demineralization (DIAGNOdent score) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35)

A single triple-blinded RCT found the ACP-containing adhesive reduced enamel demineralization versus a conventional adhesive over 6 months (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Adhesive precoated (APC) flash-free brackets (minimal excess adhesive) vs Conventional brackets

White spot lesions assessed by laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35)

Two studies found adhesive flash-free brackets did not clinically reduce enamel demineralization or white spot lesions versus conventional brackets, though they reduced pathogenic bacteria (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride-releasing primers/adhesives (Opal Seal; Clearfil Protect Bond) vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Enamel demineralization (DIAGNOdent score) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35)

Across three small non-randomized studies, fluoride-releasing primers (Opal Seal, Clearfil) showed no consistent clinical advantage over conventional primers in preventing white spot lesions (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Commercial fluoride-releasing RMGIC orthodontic adhesive (Fuji Ortho LC) vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Fluoride ion release · Human enamel specimens around orthodontic brackets (in vitro)

In vitro, the commercial RMGIC Fuji Ortho LC showed significant fluoride release up to 6 months in a single study (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

One-step adhesive bonding system (GC Ortho Connect) vs Conventional multi-step adhesive systems (three-step Transbond XT; self-etch primer Transbond Plus)

White spot lesion development (QLF: mineral loss, lesion area/depth, new lesions) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35)

A single RCT found the one-step adhesive without a primer (GC Ortho Connect) produced more and more severe white spot lesions than conventional multi-step systems (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic adhesive containing quaternary ammonium resin monomer + 40% n-ACP vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Calcium and phosphate ion release · Human enamel specimens around orthodontic brackets (in vitro)

In vitro, an n-ACP-containing adhesive significantly increased calcium and phosphate ion release up to 42 days in a single study (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Experimental adhesive containing ammonium-based methacrylate monomer (MADQUAT) vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Enamel remineralization / carious lesion development · Human enamel specimens around orthodontic brackets (in vitro)

In vitro, an ammonium-based methacrylate-containing adhesive showed significant remineralization/anti-demineralization versus control in a single study (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic adhesive/composite containing nano-calcium fluoride (n-CaF2), alone or with DMAHDM vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Enamel remineralization extent · Human enamel specimens around orthodontic brackets (in vitro)

In vitro, a nano-CaF2-containing orthodontic cement showed significant enamel remineralization versus control in a single study (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic adhesives containing nano-amorphous calcium phosphate (n-ACP) particles/nanoparticles vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Enamel remineralization extent · Human enamel specimens around orthodontic brackets (in vitro)

In vitro, n-ACP-containing orthodontic adhesives showed significant enamel remineralization versus control in both studies, but evidence is weak (only 2 studies; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Experimental orthodontic adhesive containing amorphous fluorinated calcium phosphate nanoparticles (n-AFCP) vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Enamel remineralization extent and color change · Human enamel specimens around orthodontic brackets (in vitro)

In vitro, an n-AFCP-containing orthodontic primer showed significant enamel remineralization and less color change versus control in a single study (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic adhesives containing bioactive glass (BAG) particles/nanoparticles (including fluoride- or Ga-doped BAG) vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Ion release (fluoride, calcium, phosphate) · Human enamel specimens around orthodontic brackets (in vitro)

In vitro, among the 5 BAG ion-release studies only Ga-doped BAG (GaMBN, Song [31]) reported a significant increase (phosphate, up to 14 days); a general significant fluoride/calcium/phosphate increase across all 5 is not supported (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic adhesives containing bioactive glass (BAG) particles/nanoparticles (including Ag-, Zn-, fluoride-, or Ga-doped BAG) vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Enamel remineralization / anti-demineralization extent · Human enamel specimens around orthodontic brackets (in vitro)

In vitro, most bioactive glass-containing orthodontic adhesives (9 of 13 studies) showed significant enamel remineralization/anti-demineralization versus control, but the evidence is weak (predominantly high risk of bias, methodological heterogeneity, no meta-analysis; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review