Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

8 questions · 8 findings · 3 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%

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) probably leads to lower mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.) (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Dual mini-screw implant vs Single mini-screw implant

Mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage

Dual mini-screw implant led to higher mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar compared with single mini-screw implant; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction vs Single primary (canine) tooth extraction

Effect of severity of PDC displacement towards the midline on the proportion of successful eruptions · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)
1 finding from 1 review

Extraction of the primary (baby) canine (single primary tooth extraction) vs No extraction (non-intervention control)

Effect of severity of PDC displacement towards the midline on the proportion of successful eruptions · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)
1 finding from 1 review

Bonded molar tubes (attached with adhesive) vs Molar bands (cemented, e.g. with glass ionomer cement)

Decalcification · Participants with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) with molar tubes bonded to first or second permanent molars; excludes prior…

Bonded molar tubes (attached with adhesive) led to higher decalcification (participant level) compared with molar bands (cemented, e.g. with glass ionomer cement); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Bonded molar tubes (attached with adhesive) vs Molar bands (cemented, e.g. with glass ionomer cement)

First time failure at participant level · Participants with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) with molar tubes bonded to first or second permanent molars; excludes prior…

Bonded molar tubes (attached with adhesive) led to higher first time failure at participant level compared with molar bands (cemented, e.g. with glass ionomer cement); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Bonded molar tubes (attached with adhesive) vs Molar bands (cemented, e.g. with glass ionomer cement)

First time failure at tooth level · Participants with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) with molar tubes bonded to first or second permanent molars; excludes prior…

Bonded molar tubes (attached with adhesive) led to higher first time failure at tooth level compared with molar bands (cemented, e.g. with glass ionomer cement); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review