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
Masking effect (esthetic improvement) · Patients with dental fluorosis
Bleaching before resin infiltration did not improve masking of fluorosis compared with infiltration alone (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.39; moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
MD -0.30 [-0.98, 0.39]
2 studies
Moderate
S. mutans counts (5th-root transformed) · Adolescents/teenagers undergoing orthodontic treatment
A single study found no significant difference in S. mutans counts between aligners and fixed appliances in adolescents at 1 month (MD -2.22, 95% CI -6.82 to 2.38; ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review
MD -2.22 [-6.82, 2.38]
1 study
GRADE not reported
Initiation of white spot lesions (WSL), visual-tactile assessment · Patients of any age (11-40 years) receiving comprehensive/fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances
For resin-based bonding agents, fluoride release did not significantly change WSL initiation (RR 0.97); subgroup not separately GRADE-rated.
1 finding from 1 review
Economic factors · 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
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.
1 finding from 1 review
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
Acceptability · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)
1 finding from 1 review
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
Adverse events · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)
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).
1 finding from 1 review
Success or failure of the anchorage device · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)
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
Residual overjet at the end of treatment · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Patient discomfort · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)
1 finding from 1 review
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
Duration of overall treatment · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)
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).
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
Duration of space closure · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)
Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) showed no clear difference in duration of space closure compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review