Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

717 questions · 754 findings · 77 reviews · All outcomes

No studies found 188 · 24.9%GRADE not reported 372 · 49.3%Very low 114 · 15.1%Low 57 · 7.6%Moderate 19 · 2.5%High 4 · 0.5%

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

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

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

Any orthodontic and/or surgical treatment for Angle Class III malocclusion vs no intervention or another intervention

Correction of prominent lower front teeth / effectiveness of treatment (planned primary outcome) · Adults (16 years of age or older) with an Angle Class III malocclusion (prominent lower front teeth); people with syndromes, clefts or…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • No included study measured the planned primary outcome. Discussion: 'The primary outcome proposed for this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments for prognathism, but none of the studies conclusively…
    Studies not reported
    No studies found

Low‐level laser therapy vs Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) + calcium hydroxide

Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) showed no clear difference in radiological failure compared with low-level laser therapy (LLLT) + calcium hydroxide; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Laminar air flow with HEPA filter vs Without laminar flow or filter

Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU per cubic feet/min/patient) using Reyniers slit sampler 30 inches (76 cm) from floor · People undergoing aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in a dental setting

It is very uncertain whether laminar air flow with HEPA filter changes reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU per cubic… compared with without laminar flow or filter (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Laminar air flow with HEPA filter vs Without laminar flow or filter

Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU per cubic feet/min/patient) using Andersen cascade sampler 20-30 cm from mouth · People undergoing aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in a dental setting

It is very uncertain whether laminar air flow with HEPA filter changes reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU per cubic… compared with without laminar flow or filter (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review