Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

178 questions · 182 findings · 14 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 67 · 36.8%GRADE not reported 36 · 19.8%Very low 38 · 20.9%Low 30 · 16.5%Moderate 11 · 6%High 0 · 0%

Intervention not reported

Pain on walking (NRS) Scale from 0 to 10 · patients with varus medial osteoarthritis of the knee

1 finding from 1 review

Braces and orthoses for treating osteoarthritis of the knee 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
2 studies · 224 participants
Moderate

Intervention not reported

Physical function (WOMAC) ‐ 12 months Scale from 0 to 100 · patients with varus medial osteoarthritis of the knee

1 finding from 1 review

Braces and orthoses for treating osteoarthritis of the knee 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
3 studies · 358 participants
Moderate

Intervention not reported

Health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) Scale from 0 to 1.0 · patients with varus medial osteoarthritis of the knee

1 finding from 1 review

Braces and orthoses for treating osteoarthritis of the knee 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 179 participants
Moderate

Bracing vs observation

Child health, functioning, and quality of life Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) · adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis

1 finding from 1 review

Braces for idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 236 participants
Very low

Bracing vs observation

Risk of success curves remaining below 50° · adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis

It is very uncertain whether bracing changes risk of success curves remaining below 50° compared with observation (cohort studies) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Braces for idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.5 [1.19, 1.89]
1 study · 242 participants
Very low

Bracing vs observation

Risk for at least one adverse event per patient · adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis

It is very uncertain whether bracing changes any adverse event number of participants with at least 1 adverse event compared with observation (cohort studies) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Braces for idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.27 [0.96, 1.67]
1 study · 242 participants
Very low

Bracing vs observation

Pulmonary disorders, disability, back pain, psychological issues, and cosmetic issues subjective or objective · adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis

1 finding from 1 review

Braces for idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
0 studies · 0 participants
GRADE not reported

Dual mini-screw implant vs Single mini-screw implant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.)

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

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.)

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

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.)

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

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.)

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

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

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

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

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

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.)

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

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.)

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

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.)

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

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