Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

10 questions · 10 findings · 4 reviews · Orthodontics

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 6 · 60%Very low 3 · 30%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 1 · 10%High 0 · 0%

Indirect bonding using flowable composite adhesive (Opal Bond MV) vs Direct bonding (conventional, Transbond XT)

White spot lesion formation (QLF: fluorescence loss, lesion area) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

Indirect bonding with a flowable adhesive favored less QLF-measured demineralization, with certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Resin infiltration vs Pre-treatment baseline before infiltration (T0); pooled as a within-arm before/after change

Lightness/brightness change of white spot lesion (luminosity L*, T0 to T1) · Patients with post-orthodontic white spot lesions and permanent dentition

ICON resin infiltration showed no statistically significant change in lightness/brightness of post-orthodontic white spot lesions at 6 months (pooled Cohen's d/SMD -0.001, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.23; 3 studies, 330 teeth; I2=97%); not GRADE-rated.

1 finding from 1 review

Resin infiltration vs Pre-treatment baseline before infiltration (T0); pooled as a within-arm before/after change

Color change of white spot lesion (color difference, T0 to T1) · Patients with post-orthodontic white spot lesions and permanent dentition

ICON resin infiltration significantly improved the color of post-orthodontic white spot lesions at 6 months (pooled Cohen's d/SMD 1.36, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.59; 4 studies, 458 teeth), although heterogeneity was very high (I2=98%) with a heavy outlier (Kannan); not GRADE-rated.

1 finding from 1 review

Indirect bonding using flowable composite adhesive (Opal Bond MV) vs Direct bonding (conventional, Transbond XT)

White spot lesion formation (QLF: fluorescence loss, lesion area) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35)

A single RCT found indirect bonding with flowable composite reduced white spot lesion formation versus direct bonding (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Anorexia nervosa (as exposure; diagnosed by DSM-III/III-R/IV/V) vs Healthy controls

Salivary flow rate (stimulated) · Patients with anorexia nervosa aged >=12 years (mean age ~18.4; entirely female in reported data), general community-dwelling population

Stimulated salivary flow rate was significantly lower in anorexia nervosa patients than controls, but only unstimulated flow was meta-analyzed; this outcome is ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Anorexia nervosa (as exposure; diagnosed by DSM-III/III-R/IV/V) vs Healthy controls

Salivary flow rate (unstimulated) · Patients with anorexia nervosa aged >=12 years (mean age ~18.4; entirely female in reported data), general community-dwelling population

Anorexia nervosa probably reduces unstimulated salivary flow rate versus healthy controls (MD -0.27 ml/min, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.24; moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances (exposure) vs None (single-group prevalence/incidence estimate)

Incidence of new ICLs (mean number of new lesions per subject) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances, followed for development of new ICLs

Patients developed on average about 2.29 new ICLs during fixed orthodontic treatment (95% CI 1.12-3.46; very low certainty; very high heterogeneity).

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances (exposure) vs None (single-group prevalence/incidence estimate)

Incidence of new ICLs (proportion of tooth surfaces developing new lesions) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances, followed for development of new ICLs

About 15% of tooth surfaces developed new ICLs during fixed orthodontic treatment (pooled 0.15, 95% CI 0.08-0.26; very low certainty; extreme heterogeneity).

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances (exposure) vs None (single-group prevalence/incidence estimate)

Association between orthodontic treatment duration and ICLs incidence · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances, followed for development of new ICLs

ICLs incidence increased with longer orthodontic treatment duration (meta-regression P<.01; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances (exposure) vs None (single-group prevalence/incidence estimate)

Incidence of new ICLs (proportion of subjects developing new lesions) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances, followed for development of new ICLs

About 48% of patients developed new ICLs during fixed orthodontic treatment (pooled incidence 0.48, 95% CI 0.33-0.63; very low certainty; very high heterogeneity).

1 finding from 1 review