What do systematic reviews say?

Psychological interventions (positive and negative reinforcement) vs no treatment

Psychological interventions (positive and negative reinforcement) led to higher sucking cessation (long term) compared with no treatment; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for the cessation of non‐nutritive sucking habits in children 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Long term (12 months or more)
  RR 6.25 [1.65, 23.65]
  1 study · 57 participants
  GRADE not reported

Psychological interventions (positive/negative reinforcement, habit reversal, DRO) vs no treatment

Psychological interventions (positive/negative reinforcement, habit… may leads to higher sucking cessation (short term) compared with no treatment (low certainty).

• Interventions for the cessation of non‐nutritive sucking habits in children 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short term (less than 12 months)
  RR 6.16 [1.18, 32.10]
  2 studies · 87 participants
  Low

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

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).

• 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

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Light vibrational forces (LVF) showed no clear difference in patient-reported need for analgesics during first week of initial… compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (placebo or no adjunct) (low certainty).

• Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment 2023 · Cochrane All outcomes

  First week of initial aligning archwire
  OR 1.64 [0.60, 4.53]
  2 studies · 76 participants
  Low

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Light vibrational forces (LVF) showed no clear difference in harms: non-serious adverse effects (headache, discomfort, loosening… compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (placebo or no adjunct); GRADE not reported.

• Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment 2023 · Cochrane All outcomes
  RR 0.96 [0.32, 2.85]
  1 study · 45 participants
  GRADE not reported

Psychological interventions vs no treatment

• Interventions for the cessation of non‐nutritive sucking habits in children 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  SoF (psychological interventions vs no treatment): Adverse events - insufficient information reported. Table 3 (adverse outcomes after one month; Haryett 1967), psychological treatment group: reported upset 1/11 (9%);…
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Psychological interventions vs no treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for the cessation of non‐nutritive sucking habits in children 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Occlusion: Not reported.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Psychological intervention (positive reinforcement) vs Alternative psychological intervention (negative reinforcement)

• Interventions for the cessation of non‐nutritive sucking habits in children 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Long term (12 months or more)
  Larsson 1972, comparing positive reinforcement with negative reinforcement, also provided long-term data. Again, no statistically significant between-group differences were shown (Analysis 6.2).
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Psychological intervention (habit reversal / positive reinforcement) vs Alternative psychological intervention (DRO / negative reinforcement)

• Interventions for the cessation of non‐nutritive sucking habits in children 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short term (less than 12 months)
  Christensen 1987 (20 participants) compared habit reversal (HR) with differential reinforcement of other behaviour (DRO): no statistically significant difference. Larsson 1972 (38 participants) compared positive with…
  2 studies · 58 participants
  GRADE not reported

Any intervention to manage relapse: fixed options (labial braces, lingual braces, fixed lingual wire) or removable options (Hawley's retainer with spring elastomeric module, Bloore removable aligner, other Hawley's retainer modifications, Invisalign, Clearstep) vs no intervention or another intervention

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for managing relapse of the lower front teeth after orthodontic treatment 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No RCTs met the inclusion criteria for this review. After deduplication, the electronic searching identified 527 publications; after reviewing the titles and abstracts, none focused on interventions to correct the…
  0 studies
  No studies found

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• 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 vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

• 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

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Light vibrational forces (LVF) showed no clear difference in harms and side effects: orthodontically-induced inflammatory root… compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (placebo or no adjunct) (low certainty).

• Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment 2023 · Cochrane All outcomes
  MD 0.09 [-0.35, 0.53]
  1 study · 50 participants
  Low

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

• Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment 2023 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No serious adverse effects were reported across five studies that assessed harms (Katchooi 2018; Lombardo 2018; Pavlin 2015; Reiss 2020; Taha 2020).
  5 studies
  GRADE not reported

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Light vibrational forces (LVF) showed no clear difference in rate of orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) during space closure stage… compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (placebo or no adjunct) (low certainty).

• Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment 2023 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Space closure stage
  MD 0.10 [-0.08, 0.29]
  2 studies · 81 participants
  Low

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

• 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

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

• Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment 2023 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Katchooi 2018 (unclear risk of bias): light vibrational forces had no statistically significant (P>0.05) effect on OHRQoL when used with orthodontic aligners.
  1 study · 27 participants
  GRADE not reported

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Light vibrational forces (LVF) showed no clear difference in rate of orthodontic tooth movement with removable orthodontic aligners compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (placebo or no adjunct); GRADE not reported.

• Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment 2023 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Full aligner treatment duration
  MD 0.2 [-1.51, 1.10]
  1 study · 27 participants
  GRADE not reported

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Light vibrational forces (LVF) showed no clear difference in orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) during alignment stage (reduction… compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (placebo or no adjunct) (low certainty).

• Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment 2023 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Full alignment stage (also 4-6 weeks; 10-16 weeks)
  MD -0.20 [-7.02, 6.62]
  1 study · 54 participants
  Low

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Light vibrational forces (LVF) showed no clear difference in duration of orthodontic treatment compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (placebo or no adjunct) (low certainty).

• Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment 2023 · Cochrane All outcomes
  MD -0.61 [-2.44, 1.22]
  2 studies · 77 participants
  Low