Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

1,127 questions · 1,590 findings · 132 reviews · All outcomes

No studies found 189 · 11.9%GRADE not reported 1,166 · 73.3%Very low 130 · 8.2%Low 69 · 4.3%Moderate 25 · 1.6%High 11 · 0.7%

Upper clear plastic retainer + lower fixed canine-to-canine retainer vs Upper clear plastic retainer + lower interproximal reduction (adjunctive), no lower retainer

Stability: Little's Irregularity Index (lower arch) · People who had received fixed appliance orthodontic treatment

Upper clear plastic retainer + lower fixed canine-to-canine retainer showed no clear difference in stability: Little's Irregularity Index (lower arch) compared with upper clear plastic retainer + lower interproximal reduction…; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Low‐level laser therapy vs Placebo (or no irradiation)

Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · Adolescents and adults undergoing orthodontic treatment

Low‐level laser therapy (LLLT) showed no clear difference in patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or… compared with placebo (or no irradiation); GRADE not reported.

5 findings from 1 review
Show 2 more findings

Psychological intervention: structured telephone call (verbal follow‐up and reassurance) vs placebo or no intervention

Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · People undergoing orthodontic treatment (any age; 9 to 34 years in included studies)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Lower lip bumper vs No active treatment (control)

Lower incisors to mandible (position, mm) at 9 months · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Lower lip bumper led to higher lower incisors to mandible at 6 months compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Lower lip bumper vs No active treatment (control)

Size of the lower jaw (arch length) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Lower lip bumper led to higher size of the lower jaw (mandibular arch length) at 6 months compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Lower lip bumper vs No active treatment (control)

Lower molars to mandible (relationship of lower back teeth to the mandible) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Lower lip bumper led to lower lower molars to mandible at 6 months compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Lower lingual arch vs No active treatment (control)

Size of the lower jaw (arch length) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Lower lingual arch led to higher size of the lower jaw (mandibular arch length) at 1 year compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Lower lingual arch vs No active treatment (control)

Lower incisors to mandible (position, mm) at 9 months · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Lower lingual arch led to higher lower incisors to mandible at 1 year compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Lower lingual arch vs No active treatment (control)

Lower molars to mandible (relationship of lower back teeth to the mandible) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Lower lingual arch led to lower lower molars to mandible at 1 year compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Extraction of lower deciduous canines vs No active treatment (control)

Lower incisor inclination (lingual tipping and retrusion) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Extraction of lower deciduous canines showed no clear difference in lower incisors to mandible (inclination, degrees) at 1 year compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Extraction of lower deciduous canines vs No active treatment (control)

Amount of crowding · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

It is very uncertain whether extraction of lower deciduous canines changes amount of crowding (lower incisor crowding, change) at 1-2 years compared with no active treatment (control) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Extraction of lower deciduous canines vs No active treatment (control)

Size of the lower jaw (arch length, change) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Extraction of lower deciduous canines led to lower size of the lower jaw (arch length, change) at 1 year compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Upper clear plastic retainer + lower fixed canine-to-canine retainer vs Positioner

Stability: Little's Irregularity Index (lower arch) · People who had received fixed appliance orthodontic treatment

Upper clear plastic retainer + lower fixed canine-to-canine retainer led to lower stability: Little's Irregularity Index (lower arch) compared with positioner; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Upper clear plastic retainer + lower interproximal reduction (adjunctive) vs Positioner

Stability: Little's Irregularity Index (lower arch) · People who had received fixed appliance orthodontic treatment

Upper clear plastic retainer + lower interproximal reduction… led to lower stability: Little's Irregularity Index (lower arch) compared with positioner; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Socioeconomic status category vs Children without dental caries

Dental caries · Children (deciduous and/or permanent dentition) in low- and middle-income countries

High SES showed no significant association with dental caries (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.31; 5 studies; not GRADE-rated).

2 findings from 1 review

Socioeconomic status category vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)

Low SES prevalence (among children with caries) · Children with dental caries (deciduous and/or permanent dentition) in low- and middle-income countries

About 36% of children with caries in LMICs were of low SES (pooled prevalence 0.359, 95% CI 0.167 to 0.578; 4 studies; not GRADE-rated).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Assessment of the alignment of the lower front teeth using any method or index · Participants who previously underwent orthodontic treatment, with subsequent crowding (relapse) of the lower front teeth (lower incisors…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review