What do systematic reviews say?

One type of adhesive used to bond molar tubes (chemically-cured composite, light-cured composite, conventional glass ionomer, poly-acid modified composite/compomer, or resin-modified glass ionomer) vs Any other type of adhesive used to bond molar tubes

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies
  No studies found

One type of adhesive used to bond molar tubes (chemically-cured composite, light-cured composite, conventional glass ionomer, poly-acid modified composite/compomer, or resin-modified glass ionomer) vs Any other type of adhesive used to bond molar tubes

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies
  No studies found

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

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.

• Treatments for adults with prominent lower front teeth 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes

  1 year post-surgery
  MD 0.00 [-0.38, 0.38]
  1 study · 53 participants
  GRADE not reported

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

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.

• Treatments for adults with prominent lower front teeth 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes

  1 year post-surgery
  MD -0.10 [-0.64, 0.44]
  1 study · 53 participants
  GRADE not reported

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

• Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No other adverse events identified
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

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

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.

• Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  RR 1.85 [1.22, 2.79]
  1 study · 74 participants
  GRADE not reported

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

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.

• Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  RR 2.30 [1.56, 3.41]
  2 studies · 186 participants
  GRADE not reported

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

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.

• Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  HR 2.92 [1.80, 4.72]
  2 studies · 190 participants
  GRADE not reported

Light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer cement vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin)

• Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment)
  Fricker 1997 was a three-arm split-mouth trial that included a light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer arm (compared with light-cured compomer and chemically cured glass ionomer). Failure rates were reported but not…
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Chemically cured zinc phosphate cement vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)

• Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment)
  No meta-analysis (band failure not reported on a per-patient basis). Durning 1989 (69 participants): at ~12 months failure rate 34.78% (zinc phosphate) vs 26% (glass ionomer), P > 0.05; mean survival time 470.9 vs…
  4 studies
  GRADE not reported

Chemically cured glass ionomer cement vs Chemically cured glass phosphonate

• Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment)
  Clark 2003: failure rates presented per adhesive group by number of bands failing (overall proportion of band failure 0.048 for each material); no per-patient failure data. Low band failure rates; insufficient evidence…
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Chemically cured glass ionomer cement vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin)

• Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment)
  No meta-analysis. Fricker 1997: failure data not presented in an analysable format (number of bands or failures per person not given). Gillgrass 2001 (98 participants; 140 band pairs): 4 single-band failures with…
  3 studies
  GRADE not reported

Fixed prostheses cemented to prepared teeth after extraction or decoronation of the ankylosed teeth vs Conventional orthodontic treatment or follow-up with no specific treatment for ankylosis

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for treating traumatised ankylosed permanent front teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies
  No studies found

Hawley removable retainer vs Clear plastic removable retainer

It is very uncertain whether hawley removable retainer changes survival of retainers (failure, upper and lower arches) compared with clear plastic removable retainer (very low certainty).

• Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces 2023 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12 months · upper and lower arches
  RR 0.60 [0.43, 0.83]
  1 study · 111 participants
  Very low

Hawley removable retainer vs Clear plastic removable retainer

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces 2023 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12 months · upper and lower arches
  No RCTs at 12 months; 1 RCT at 6 months: Hawley less comfortable (VAS MD -1.86, 95% CI -2.19 to -1.53; very low-certainty)
  0 studies
  No studies found

Zinc polycarboxylate cement vs Any other orthodontic band adhesive

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No trial was identified that examined the effectiveness of zinc polycarboxylate cement.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Zinc silicophosphate cement vs Any other orthodontic band adhesive

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No trial was identified that examined the effectiveness of zinc silicophosphate cement.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Chemical cured composite vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  To end of appliance treatment
  It was surprising that decalcification rates were not reported as a secondary outcome, as clinically it is suggested that GIC is protective against decalcification; the…
  0 studies
  No studies found

Chemical cured composite vs Light cured composite

• Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  To end of appliance treatment
  Additional Table 1 summarises the proportion of bracket failures for a CC and LC composite with two different bracket bases (O'Brien 1989). The paper reported the results of applying a Mantel-Haenszel Chi2 test which…
  1 study · 52 participants
  GRADE not reported

Composite (chemical or light cured) vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  To end of appliance treatment
  No included studies involved a comparison with resin-modified glass ionomer cement (a planned adhesive group). The authors recommended future randomised controlled trials involving resin-modified light cured glass…
  0 studies
  No studies found