Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

46 questions · 47 findings · 6 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 9 · 19.1%GRADE not reported 16 · 34%Very low 8 · 17%Low 7 · 14.9%Moderate 6 · 12.8%High 1 · 2.1%

Closest answers

The findings closest to your search, judged one by one by TypeSafe's Jev model.

Direct match · question page
- Conventional occlusion vs atropine penalization · Mean visual acuity at 6 months (difference in LogMAR units between occlusion and atropine groups)
  Conventional occlusion versus pharmacologic penalization for amblyopia 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  3 studies · 552 participants
  Moderate
Direct match · question page
- Conventional occlusion vs atropine penalization · Stereo acuity (different measures and time points reported in the included studies) Assessed at different time points (17 weeks, 6 months, 2 years, or at cessation of treatment) and using different measures (TNO stereo test, Titmus fly test, Rando...
  Conventional occlusion versus pharmacologic penalization for amblyopia 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  5 studies · 865 participants
  Moderate
Direct match · question page
- Conventional occlusion vs atropine penalization · Adverse events (reported occurrence of: mild reduction in the visual acuity of the sound eye not requiring treatment; light sensitivity; skin, lid, or conjunctival irritation) Assessed at different time points (17 weeks or 2 years).
  Conventional occlusion versus pharmacologic penalization for amblyopia 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 612 participants
  High
Direct match · question page
- Conventional occlusion vs atropine penalization · Quality of life (different measures and time points reported in the included studies) Assessed at different time points (17 weeks or 6 months) by patient preference or the Amblyopia Treatment Index questionnaire.
  Conventional occlusion versus pharmacologic penalization for amblyopia 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 256 participants
  Moderate
Related · question page
- Conventional occlusion vs atropine penalization · Adherence to treatment (different measures and time points reported in the included studies) Assessed at different time points (6, 12, 0r 24 months), and with different measures (percentage of prescribed treatment that was completed at each study ...
  Conventional occlusion versus pharmacologic penalization for amblyopia 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  4 studies · 588 participants
  Moderate

Conventional occlusion vs atropine penalization

Visual acuity · Participants of any age with either unilateral strabismic, anisometropic, or mixed (strabismic‐refractive) amblyopia; deprivation…

2 findings from 1 review

Conventional occlusion versus pharmacologic penalization for amblyopia 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
3 studies · 552 participants
Moderate
Conventional occlusion versus pharmacologic penalization for amblyopia 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
2 studies · 483 participants
Moderate

Conventional occlusion vs atropine penalization

Adherence · Participants of any age with either unilateral strabismic, anisometropic, or mixed (strabismic‐refractive) amblyopia; deprivation…

1 finding from 1 review

Conventional occlusion versus pharmacologic penalization for amblyopia 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
4 studies · 588 participants
Moderate

Conventional occlusion vs atropine penalization

Ocular alignment (different measures and time points reported in the included studies) Assessed at different time points (17 weeks, 24 months, or cessation of treatment) and by the proportions of participants who developed strabismus, showed chang... · Participants of any age with either unilateral strabismic, anisometropic, or mixed (strabismic‐refractive) amblyopia; deprivation…

1 finding from 1 review

Conventional occlusion versus pharmacologic penalization for amblyopia 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
3 studies · 888 participants
Moderate

Conventional occlusion vs atropine penalization

Stereo acuity (different measures and time points reported in the included studies) Assessed at different time points (17 weeks, 6 months, 2 years, or at cessation of treatment) and using different measures (TNO stereo test, Titmus fly test, Rando... · Participants of any age with either unilateral strabismic, anisometropic, or mixed (strabismic‐refractive) amblyopia; deprivation…

1 finding from 1 review

Conventional occlusion versus pharmacologic penalization for amblyopia 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
5 studies · 865 participants
Moderate

Conventional occlusion vs atropine penalization

Quality of life (different measures and time points reported in the included studies) Assessed at different time points (17 weeks or 6 months) by patient preference or the Amblyopia Treatment Index questionnaire. · Participants of any age with either unilateral strabismic, anisometropic, or mixed (strabismic‐refractive) amblyopia; deprivation…

1 finding from 1 review

Conventional occlusion versus pharmacologic penalization for amblyopia 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
2 studies · 256 participants
Moderate

Conventional occlusion vs atropine penalization

Adverse events (reported occurrence of: mild reduction in the visual acuity of the sound eye not requiring treatment; light sensitivity; skin, lid, or conjunctival irritation) Assessed at different time points (17 weeks or 2 years). · Participants of any age with either unilateral strabismic, anisometropic, or mixed (strabismic‐refractive) amblyopia; deprivation…

1 finding from 1 review

Conventional occlusion versus pharmacologic penalization for amblyopia 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
2 studies · 612 participants
High

Twin Block functional appliance vs Modified Twin Block appliances

Final overjet · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Twin Block functional appliance (conventional) showed no clear difference in final overjet compared with modified Twin Block appliances; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of orthodontic treatment
MD -0.23 [-0.67, 0.22]
2 studies · 196 participants
GRADE not reported

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Improvement in occlusion (Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) or other validated scale) · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed or removable appliances

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment 2023 · Cochrane All outcomes
Woodhouse 2015 (81 participants, 22 dropouts): PAR reduction intervention median 28.0 (IQR 21.0-38.0), control median 29.0 (IQR 24.0-31.0), placebo median 27.0 (IQR 20.0-35.0); percentage improvement medians 88.9 /…
1 study · 59 participants
GRADE not reported

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

Improvement in occlusion (Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) or other validated scale) · 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

Surgical adjunctive procedures for accelerating orthodontic treatment 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
Results: 'Our prespecified secondary outcomes of patient satisfaction, improvement in occlusion, and prolonged stability of treatment were not measured in the trials.'
0 studies
No studies found

Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns vs Conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns

Occlusion · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free

Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns led to lower occlusion at 6 months compared with conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Dental fillings for the treatment of caries in the primary dentition 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes
6 months
Occlusion at 6 months: odds ratio not estimable - no events recorded at the 6-month evaluation.
1 study · 22 participants
GRADE not reported

Hybrid Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics vs Conventional Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics

Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Hybrid Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics showed no clear difference in overjet compared with conventional Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children 2024 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of treatment
MD 0.91 [-0.56, 2.38]
1 study · 35 participants
GRADE not reported

Nanda facemask vs Conventional facemask

ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Nanda facemask led to higher ANB compared with conventional facemask; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children 2024 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of treatment
MD 1.29 [0.16, 2.42]
1 study · 20 participants
GRADE not reported

Hybrid Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics vs Conventional Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics

Wits appraisal · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Hybrid Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics showed no clear difference in wits appraisal compared with conventional Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children 2024 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of treatment
MD 0.28 [-1.08, 1.64]
1 study · 35 participants
GRADE not reported

Hybrid Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics vs Conventional Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics

ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Hybrid Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics showed no clear difference in ANB compared with conventional Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children 2024 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of treatment
MD 0.55 [-0.40, 1.50]
1 study · 35 participants
GRADE not reported

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Costs · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed or removable appliances

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment 2023 · Cochrane All outcomes
Cost of treatment was not investigated in any of the included studies.
Studies not reported
No studies found

Light-emitting diode (LED) photobiomodulation vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Discomfort/pain · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment

It is very uncertain whether light-emitting diode (LED) photobiomodulation changes patient perception of pain and discomfort (VAS 0 to 100 mm) compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment 2023 · Cochrane All outcomes
First visit
MD -0.80 [-2.20, 0.62]
1 study · 39 participants
Very low

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Change in angulation of teeth adjacent to the space (molar and canine tipping/rotation) · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed or removable appliances

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment 2023 · Cochrane All outcomes
Siriphan 2019 (lateral cephalometric radiographs): rate of molar movement and tipping, and canine rotation and tipping were not significantly different between groups (P>0.05).
1 study
GRADE not reported

Low‐level laser therapy vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Rate of orthodontic tooth movement during space closure stage (maxillary arch), mm/month · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment

It is very uncertain whether low level laser therapy (LLLT) changes rate of orthodontic tooth movement during space closure stage… compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment 2023 · Cochrane All outcomes
Space closure stage
MD 0.18 [0.10, 0.26]
1 study · 45 participants
Very low

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Discomfort/pain · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed or removable appliances

Light vibrational forces (LVF) showed no clear difference in patient perception of pain and discomfort (VAS 0 to 100 mm),… compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (placebo or no adjunct) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment 2023 · Cochrane All outcomes
Immediately after ligation of initial archwire (also 4-8h, 1, 3, 7 days)
MD 2.56 [-2.35, 7.47]
3 studies · 153 participants
Low

Low‐level laser therapy vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Side effects or other adverse events · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment 2023 · Cochrane All outcomes
SoF states harms/side effects Not reported; Ghaffer 2022 (the only LLLT study to assess harms) reported no serious harms other than gingivitis associated with plaque accumulation.
1 study
GRADE not reported