What do systematic reviews say?

Pre-drilling mini-screw implant vs Self-drilling mini-screw implant

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.

• Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
  RR 1.12 [0.91, 1.38]
  1 study · 62 participants
  GRADE not reported

Dual mini-screw implant vs Single mini-screw implant

Dual mini-screw implant led to higher mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar 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 1.62 [0.98, 2.26]
  1 study · 25 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 space closure compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.); GRADE not reported.

• Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
  SMD -0.09 [-0.54, 0.35]
  3 studies · 80 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) led to higher number of visits compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.); GRADE not reported.

• Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
  MD 7.01 [3.47, 10.55]
  1 study · 47 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
  Acceptability was not reported in any of the studies comparing 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) on a VAS 0-100; the first evening after the intervention pain was significantly higher for surgical group A (P=0.002) and conventional group C (P=0.007) than surgical…
  1 study · 113 participants
  GRADE not reported

Pre-drilling mini-screw implant vs Self-drilling mini-screw implant

• Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Self-reported pain on insertion (0-4 scale): pre-drilling mean 0.73 (SD 1.1; median 0.00, IQR 0-3) vs self-drilling mean 1.87 (SD 1.13; median 2.0, IQR 0-4); 1 study (Lehnen 2011), 30 participants
  1 study · 30 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
  Adverse effects were not reported in any of the studies comparing 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.)

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 economic evaluation
  0 studies
  No studies found

Self etching primer (one-step etchant-and-primer technique) vs Conventional etchants (two-step etch and prime method using 37% phosphoric acid)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Enamel etching for bonding fixed orthodontic braces 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Cost of treatment: No studies assessed this outcome.
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Self etching primer (one-step etchant-and-primer technique) vs Conventional etchants (two-step etch and prime method using 37% phosphoric acid)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Enamel etching for bonding fixed orthodontic braces 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Damage to the teeth: No studies assessed this outcome.
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Transbond Plus self etching primer (3M Unitek) vs Clearfil Protect Bond self etching primer (Kuraray Medical)

• Enamel etching for bonding fixed orthodontic braces 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Self etching primers versus self etching primers: Two split-mouth studies compared two different SEPs (Noble 2006; Paschos 2009). The failure rates were reported at tooth level rather than at participant level. We…
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Self etching primer (one-step etchant-and-primer technique) vs Conventional etchants (two-step etch and prime method using 37% phosphoric acid)

Self etching primers (one-step etchant and primer system) showed no clear difference in bond failure rate compared with conventional etchants (two-step etch and prime method using 37%… (low certainty).

• Enamel etching for bonding fixed orthodontic braces 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  5 to 37 months
  RR 1.14 [0.75, 1.73]
  5 studies · 221 participants
  Low

Transbond Plus self etching primer (3M Unitek) vs Clearfil Protect Bond self etching primer (Kuraray Medical)

• Enamel etching for bonding fixed orthodontic braces 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Decalcification outcomes in Paschos 2009 were reported at tooth level rather than at participant level; the evidence was insufficient to conclude whether or not there is a difference in decalcification between the…
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Transbond Plus self etching primer (3M Unitek) vs First Step self etching primer (Reliance Orthodontic Products)

• Enamel etching for bonding fixed orthodontic braces 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Noble 2006 (split-mouth) compared Transbond Plus versus First Step SEP; the bond failure rate was reported at tooth level rather than at participant level and was not amenable to analysis; the evidence was insufficient…
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Different etching materials (phosphoric acid, polyacrylic acid, maleic acid, etc.), acid concentrations or etching times vs An alternative etching material, concentration or etching time

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Enamel etching for bonding fixed orthodontic braces 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
  We identified no eligible trial that examined the effects of conventional etchants with respect to different etching concentrations or etching times for the bonding of fixed orthodontic appliances. No eligible RCTs…
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Self etching primer (one-step etchant-and-primer technique) vs Conventional etchants (two-step etch and prime method using 37% phosphoric acid)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Enamel etching for bonding fixed orthodontic braces 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Participant satisfaction: No studies assessed this outcome.
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Self etching primer (one-step etchant-and-primer technique) vs Conventional etchants (two-step etch and prime method using 37% phosphoric acid)

• Enamel etching for bonding fixed orthodontic braces 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Decay (decalcification) associated with or around the etching field: Only one study (Ghiz 2009) assessed this outcome but data were reported at the tooth level rather than at the participant level and therefore was not…
  1 study · 25 participants
  GRADE not reported