Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

8 questions · 8 findings · 5 reviews · Orthodontics

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 7 · 87.5%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 1 · 12.5%High 0 · 0%

Antibacterial S. mutans reduction only in Farzanegan (chitosan+TiO2); Mollabashi (TiO2-only) showed no significant antibacterial effect - not attributable to TiO2 alone vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Streptococcus mutans count · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35)

The antibacterial (S. mutans) effect of TiO2 nanoparticles was conflicting across two RCTs (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride mouthrinse (0.05-0.32% sodium fluoride or amine fluoride) added to daily fluoride toothpaste vs Control: fluoride toothpaste alone, placebo mouthrinse + toothpaste, or non-fluoride (chlorhexidine) mouthrinse + toothpaste

Incidence of initial enamel caries / white spot lesions adjacent to bracket base (subject level, dichotomized) · Orthodontic patients (any age) undergoing orthodontic treatment (mostly fixed appliances)

Adding a fluoride mouthrinse to daily fluoride toothpaste produced a small reduction in the incidence of initial caries/white spot lesions adjacent to brackets (pooled risk difference -0.07, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.01; 5 studies, 491 subjects), but the authors judged the overall evidence inconclusive (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride mouthrinse (0.05-0.32% sodium fluoride or amine fluoride) added to daily fluoride toothpaste vs Control: fluoride toothpaste alone, placebo mouthrinse + toothpaste, or non-fluoride (chlorhexidine) mouthrinse + toothpaste

Side effects or other adverse events · Orthodontic patients (any age) undergoing orthodontic treatment (mostly fixed appliances)

No adverse effects were reported in any of the seven included studies (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Bleaching before resin infiltration (bleaching + infiltration) vs Resin infiltration alone

Masking effect (esthetic improvement) · Patients with dental fluorosis

Bleaching before resin infiltration did not improve masking of fluorosis compared with infiltration alone (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.39; moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic adhesive/composite containing nano-calcium fluoride (n-CaF2), alone or with DMAHDM vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Enamel remineralization extent · Human enamel specimens around orthodontic brackets (in vitro)

In vitro, a nano-CaF2-containing orthodontic cement showed significant enamel remineralization versus control in a single study (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Bleaching gel with added remineralising agent (fluoride, calcium, or CPP-ACP) vs Bleaching alone (no remineralising agent)

Whitening (bleaching) efficacy · Demineralised / white-spot-lesion enamel (in vitro specimens)

Low-quality in vitro evidence indicates that adding fluoride or other remineralising agents does not impair the whitening/bleaching effect (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Bleaching gel with added remineralising agent (fluoride, calcium, or CPP-ACP) vs Bleaching alone (no remineralising agent)

Enamel mineral loss / remineralisation · Demineralised / white-spot-lesion enamel (in vitro specimens)

Low-quality in vitro evidence indicates that adding fluoride, calcium or CPP-ACP to bleaching agents can reduce enamel mineral loss (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review