Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

35 questions · 40 findings · 5 reviews · Orthodontics

No studies found 9 · 22.5%GRADE not reported 24 · 60%Very low 5 · 12.5%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 2 · 5%High 0 · 0%

Active self-ligating brackets vs Passive self-ligating brackets

Time to alignment · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Active self-ligating brackets showed no clear difference in time to alignment (days) compared with passive self-ligating brackets; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Active self-ligating brackets vs Passive self-ligating brackets

Amount of crowding (upper anterior crowding) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth
1 finding from 1 review
  • Orthodontic treatment for crowded teeth in children 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
    baseline
    Only baseline upper anterior crowding reported (Pandis 2010a, n=70); evidence of baseline imbalance between groups (P=0.04); no post-treatment between-group crowding estimate reported.
    1 study
    GRADE not reported

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

Fixed-appliance orthodontic treatment incorporating surgically assisted orthodontics (adjunctive surgical procedure: corticotomy, micro-osteoperforation or interseptal bone reduction) to increase the rate of tooth movement vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Duration of orthodontic treatment, number of visits during active treatment (scheduled and unscheduled) and duration of visits · Individuals of any age receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (braces) (people requiring orthodontic tooth movement);…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Clear aligners (Invisalign / thermoformed aligners) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Plaque · Orthodontic patients undergoing comprehensive treatment (late mixed or permanent dentition, no active caries)

In randomized trials, clear aligners probably reduce plaque accumulation versus fixed appliances, though the subgroup estimate is imprecise and its CI crosses no effect (SMD -1.79, 95% CI -3.63 to 0.04; moderate certainty).

6 findings from 1 review
Show 3 more findings

Clear aligners (Invisalign / thermoformed aligners) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

White spot lesion incidence · Orthodontic patients undergoing comprehensive treatment (late mixed or permanent dentition, no active caries)

Most studies reported a lower incidence of white spot lesions with clear aligners than fixed appliances, but heterogeneous assessment methods precluded meta-analysis (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Clear aligners (Invisalign / thermoformed aligners) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Severity of white spot lesions (surface area and depth) · Orthodontic patients undergoing comprehensive treatment (late mixed or permanent dentition, no active caries)

White spot lesion severity was assessed narratively in a small number of studies and not meta-analyzed; evidence is limited (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Clear aligners (Invisalign / thermoformed aligners) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Salivary caries-associated bacteria (S. mutans and Lactobacilli, subjects with >10^5 CFU/mL) · Orthodontic patients undergoing comprehensive treatment (late mixed or permanent dentition, no active caries)

Both included studies reported higher salivary caries-associated bacteria (S. mutans and Lactobacilli) with fixed appliances than clear aligners; not meta-analyzed (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Schwarz appliance vs No active treatment (control)

Size of the lower jaw (arch length, change) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Schwarz appliance showed no clear difference in size of the lower jaw (mandibular arch length, change) at 9 months compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Lower lip bumper vs No active treatment (control)

Amount of crowding · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

It is very uncertain whether lower lip bumper changes amount of crowding (change in mandibular incisor crowding) at 6 months compared with no active treatment (control) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Lower lip bumper vs No active treatment (control)

Lower incisors to mandible (position, mm) at 9 months · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Lower lip bumper led to higher lower incisors to mandible at 6 months compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Lower lip bumper vs No active treatment (control)

Size of the lower jaw (arch length) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Lower lip bumper led to higher size of the lower jaw (mandibular arch length) at 6 months compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Schwarz appliance vs No active treatment (control)

Amount of crowding (change in mandibular crowding) at 8 weeks · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

It is very uncertain whether schwarz appliance changes amount of crowding (lower arch crowding, change) at 9 months compared with no active treatment (control) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Extraction of third molars (wisdom teeth) vs No active treatment (control)

Amount of crowding · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

It is very uncertain whether extraction of third molars (wisdom teeth) changes amount of crowding (Little's Irregularity Index, change) at 5 years compared with no active treatment (control) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Lower lingual arch vs No active treatment (control)

Size of the lower jaw (arch length) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Lower lingual arch led to higher size of the lower jaw (mandibular arch length) at 1 year compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Extraction of lower deciduous canines vs No active treatment (control)

Lower incisor inclination (lingual tipping and retrusion) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Extraction of lower deciduous canines showed no clear difference in lower incisors to mandible (inclination, degrees) at 1 year compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Schwarz appliance vs No active treatment (control)

Position of the incisors (upper incisor inclination) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Schwarz appliance showed no clear difference in upper incisors to maxilla (inclination, degrees) at 9 months compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Eruption guidance appliance vs No active treatment (control)

Amount of crowding (number of children with crowding, mandible) after 1 year · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

It is very uncertain whether eruption guidance appliance changes amount of crowding (number of children with crowding, mandible)… compared with no active treatment (control) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review