Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

227 questions · 239 findings · 17 reviews · Orthodontics

No studies found 54 · 22.6%GRADE not reported 122 · 51%Very low 37 · 15.5%Low 19 · 7.9%Moderate 7 · 2.9%High 0 · 0%

Any intervention to manage relapse: fixed options (labial braces, lingual braces, fixed lingual wire) or removable options (Hawley's retainer with spring elastomeric module, Bloore removable aligner, other Hawley's retainer modifications, Invisalign, Clearstep) vs no intervention or another intervention

Adverse effects including pain, gingivitis, enamel decalcification and root resorption · Participants who previously underwent orthodontic treatment, with subsequent crowding (relapse) of the lower front teeth (lower incisors…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Any intervention to manage relapse: fixed options (labial braces, lingual braces, fixed lingual wire) or removable options (Hawley's retainer with spring elastomeric module, Bloore removable aligner, other Hawley's retainer modifications, Invisalign, Clearstep) vs no intervention or another intervention

Aesthetics · Participants who previously underwent orthodontic treatment, with subsequent crowding (relapse) of the lower front teeth (lower incisors…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) with osteosynthesis vs Vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) without osteosynthesis

Changes in condyle position: fossa-condyle relations for anterior (1 year post-operative) · Adults (16 years of age or older) with an Angle Class III malocclusion (prominent lower front teeth); people with syndromes, clefts or…

Vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) with osteosynthesis showed no clear difference in changes in condyle position: fossa-condyle relations for anterior (1… compared with vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) without osteosynthesis; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) with osteosynthesis vs Vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) without osteosynthesis

Changes in condyle position: fossa-condyle relations for posterior (1 year post-operative) · Adults (16 years of age or older) with an Angle Class III malocclusion (prominent lower front teeth); people with syndromes, clefts or…

Vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) with osteosynthesis showed no clear difference in changes in condyle position: fossa-condyle relations for posterior… compared with vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) without osteosynthesis; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy (IVRO) vs Sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO)

Stability of correction: vertical changes of pogonion (1 week to 1 year) · Adults (16 years of age or older) with an Angle Class III malocclusion (prominent lower front teeth); people with syndromes, clefts or…

Intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy (IVRO) showed no clear difference in stability of correction: vertical changes of pogonion (1 week to 1… compared with sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy (IVRO) vs Sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO)

Stability of correction: sagittal changes of B-point (1 week to 1 year) · Adults (16 years of age or older) with an Angle Class III malocclusion (prominent lower front teeth); people with syndromes, clefts or…

Intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy (IVRO) showed no clear difference in stability of correction: sagittal changes of B-point (1 week to 1… compared with sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy (IVRO) vs Sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO)

Stability of correction: sagittal changes of pogonion (1 week to 1 year) · Adults (16 years of age or older) with an Angle Class III malocclusion (prominent lower front teeth); people with syndromes, clefts or…

Intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy (IVRO) showed no clear difference in stability of correction: sagittal changes of pogonion (1 week to 1… compared with sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy (IVRO) vs Sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO)

Stability of correction: vertical changes of B-point (1 week to 1 year) · Adults (16 years of age or older) with an Angle Class III malocclusion (prominent lower front teeth); people with syndromes, clefts or…

Intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy (IVRO) showed no clear difference in stability of correction: vertical changes of B-point (1 week to 1… compared with sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Thermoelastic copper NiTi (CuNiTi) arch wire vs Conventional (stabilised) NiTi arch wire

Time to next/working arch wire · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)

Thermoelastic copper NiTi (CuNiTi) arch wire showed no clear difference in time to next/working arch wire compared with conventional NiTi arch wire; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances (exposure) vs None (single-group prevalence/incidence estimate)

Incidence of new ICLs (mean number of new lesions per subject) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances, followed for development of new ICLs

Patients developed on average about 2.29 new ICLs during fixed orthodontic treatment (95% CI 1.12-3.46; very low certainty; very high heterogeneity).

1 finding from 1 review

Single-strand superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Coaxial superelastic NiTi arch wire

Alignment rate · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)

Single-strand superelastic NiTi arch wire probably leads to lower alignment rate compared with coaxial superelastic NiTi arch wire (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances (exposure) vs None (single-group prevalence/incidence estimate)

Incidence of new ICLs (proportion of tooth surfaces developing new lesions) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances, followed for development of new ICLs

About 15% of tooth surfaces developed new ICLs during fixed orthodontic treatment (pooled 0.15, 95% CI 0.08-0.26; very low certainty; extreme heterogeneity).

1 finding from 1 review

Superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Thermoelastic NiTi arch wire

Root resorption · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)

It is very uncertain whether superelastic NiTi arch wire changes root resorption (reduction in root length) compared with thermoelastic NiTi arch wire (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Thermoelastic NiTi arch wire

Time to next/working arch wire · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)

Superelastic NiTi arch wire showed no clear difference in time to next/working arch wire compared with thermoelastic NiTi arch wire; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review