evidencegaps
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

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
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

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

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
  • Treatments for adults with prominent lower front teeth 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
    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

Longer follow-up vs Shorter follow-up

Annual increment in DMFS (D3) · Children and adolescents with permanent dentition

Not adjusted meta-regression beta was 0.43 per additional follow-up year.

5 findings from 1 review
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Not adjusted
    Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up 0.43 [0.04, 0.83]
    22 studies · 11300 participants
    GRADE not reported
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Adjusted for bitewings and age at baseline
    Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up 0.64 [0.31, 0.96]
    22 studies · 11300 participants
    GRADE not reported
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Adjusted for bitewings age at baseline and baseline caries experience
    Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up 0.37 [0.04, 0.70]
    22 studies · 11300 participants
    GRADE not reported
Show 2 more findings
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Adjusted for groups 1-4 including relevance of evidence and risk of bias
    Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up 0.46 [0.08, 0.83]
    22 studies · 11300 participants
    GRADE not reported
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Adjusted for groups 1-3 including decade and preventive intervention
    Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up 0.36 [-0.02, 0.73]
    22 studies · 11300 participants
    GRADE not reported

Longer follow-up vs Shorter follow-up

Annual increment in DMFT (D3) · Children and adolescents with permanent dentition

Not adjusted meta-regression beta was 0.18 per additional follow-up year.

5 findings from 1 review
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Not adjusted
    Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up 0.18 [-0.04, 0.40]
    13 studies · 24753 participants
    GRADE not reported
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Adjusted for bitewings and age at baseline
    Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up 0.18 [0.02, 0.35]
    13 studies · 24753 participants
    GRADE not reported
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Adjusted for bitewings age at baseline and baseline caries experience
    Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up 0.23 [0.06, 0.40]
    13 studies · 24753 participants
    GRADE not reported
Show 2 more findings
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Adjusted for groups 1-4 including relevance of evidence and risk of bias
    Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up -0.04 [-0.34, 0.26]
    13 studies · 24753 participants
    GRADE not reported
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Adjusted for groups 1-3 including decade and preventive intervention
    Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up 0.07 [-0.24, 0.39]
    13 studies · 24753 participants
    GRADE not reported