Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

96 questions · 99 findings · 11 reviews · Orthodontics · All outcomes

No studies found 8 · 8.1%GRADE not reported 63 · 63.6%Very low 22 · 22.2%Low 3 · 3%Moderate 3 · 3%High 0 · 0%

ACP light-cure adhesive vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Enamel demineralization (DIAGNOdent score) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

ACP adhesive had lower demineralization scores at 1 month, with certainty not graded.

2 findings from 1 review

Remineralizing orthodontic adhesives vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Enamel remineralization / anti-demineralization extent · Human teeth with early enamel lesions surrounding orthodontic brackets

No meta-analysis was conducted; most included in vitro studies reported significant remineralization with remineralizing orthodontic adhesives versus controls.

1 finding from 1 review

Remineralizing orthodontic adhesives vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Ion release · Human teeth with early enamel lesions surrounding orthodontic brackets

No meta-analysis was conducted; most studies reported increased ion release over time, but few reported peak values.

1 finding from 1 review

Adhesive flash-free ceramic brackets vs Adhesive precoated ceramic brackets

Enamel demineralization (QLF ΔF) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

Flash-free brackets showed no clinical WSL reduction, with certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Opal Seal fluoride-releasing adhesive vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

White spot lesion rate and volume · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

Opal Seal showed no significant difference in WSL rate or volume, with certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

ACP light-cure adhesive vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Enamel demineralization (DIAGNOdent score) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35)

A single triple-blinded RCT found the ACP-containing adhesive reduced enamel demineralization versus a conventional adhesive over 6 months (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Adhesive precoated (APC) flash-free brackets (minimal excess adhesive) vs Conventional brackets

White spot lesions assessed by laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35)

Two studies found adhesive flash-free brackets did not clinically reduce enamel demineralization or white spot lesions versus conventional brackets, though they reduced pathogenic bacteria (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride-releasing primers/adhesives (Opal Seal; Clearfil Protect Bond) vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Enamel demineralization (DIAGNOdent score) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35)

Across three small non-randomized studies, fluoride-releasing primers (Opal Seal, Clearfil) showed no consistent clinical advantage over conventional primers in preventing white spot lesions (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Commercial fluoride-releasing RMGIC orthodontic adhesive (Fuji Ortho LC) vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Fluoride ion release · Human enamel specimens around orthodontic brackets (in vitro)

In vitro, the commercial RMGIC Fuji Ortho LC showed significant fluoride release up to 6 months in a single study (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

One-step adhesive bonding system (GC Ortho Connect) vs Conventional multi-step adhesive systems (three-step Transbond XT; self-etch primer Transbond Plus)

White spot lesion development (QLF: mineral loss, lesion area/depth, new lesions) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35)

A single RCT found the one-step adhesive without a primer (GC Ortho Connect) produced more and more severe white spot lesions than conventional multi-step systems (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic adhesive containing quaternary ammonium resin monomer + 40% n-ACP vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Calcium and phosphate ion release · Human enamel specimens around orthodontic brackets (in vitro)

In vitro, an n-ACP-containing adhesive significantly increased calcium and phosphate ion release up to 42 days in a single study (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Experimental adhesive containing ammonium-based methacrylate monomer (MADQUAT) vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Enamel remineralization / carious lesion development · Human enamel specimens around orthodontic brackets (in vitro)

In vitro, an ammonium-based methacrylate-containing adhesive showed significant remineralization/anti-demineralization versus control in a single study (ungraded).

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

Orthodontic adhesives containing nano-amorphous calcium phosphate (n-ACP) particles/nanoparticles 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, n-ACP-containing orthodontic adhesives showed significant enamel remineralization versus control in both studies, but evidence is weak (only 2 studies; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Experimental orthodontic adhesive containing amorphous fluorinated calcium phosphate nanoparticles (n-AFCP) vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

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

In vitro, an n-AFCP-containing orthodontic primer showed significant enamel remineralization and less color change versus control in a single study (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

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

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

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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Decalcification (presence or absence of decay around the attachment) · Participants with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) with molar tubes bonded to first or second permanent molars; excludes prior…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Changes in condyle position: fossa-condyle relations for anterior (1 year post-operative) · Adults (16 years of age or older) with an Angle Class III malocclusion (prominent lower front teeth); people with syndromes, clefts or…

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.

1 finding from 1 review