evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

369 questions · 463 findings · 41 reviews · Oral Health

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 44 · 9.5%GRADE not reported 336 · 72.6%Very low 31 · 6.7%Low 26 · 5.6%Moderate 15 · 3.2%High 11 · 2.4%

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
  • 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

Removable appliance with palatal crib associated with high-pull chincup vs no treatment

Expansion of the upper and lower jaw · Children and adolescents (over 80% aged 16 years or younger at treatment start) with anterior open bite (lack of vertical overlap or…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Orthodontic and orthopaedic treatment for anterior open bite in children 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
    End of treatment (12 months)
    Listed among the outcome measures evaluated by Almeida 2005. No separate width/expansion estimate is reported in the text; the review concluded the interventions produced no significant change in the skeletal maxillary…
    1 study
    GRADE not reported

Lower lip bumper 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 lower lip bumper changes amount of crowding (change in mandibular incisor crowding) at 6 months compared with no active treatment (control) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Lower unemployment rate vs Higher unemployment rate (low <=5% / medium >5-10% / high >10%)

Caries experience (mean DMFT) · 12-year-old children across European countries (national/regional epidemiological surveys, 2011-2022)

Mean DMFT tended to increase with unemployment rate (low 1.23, medium 2.08, high 2.38; ANOVA p<.05); descriptive country-level means only, not meta-analyzed or GRADE-rated.

3 findings from 1 review

Lower unemployment rate vs Higher unemployment rate (low <=5% / medium >5-10% / high >10%)

Odds of higher caries (DMFT) category · 12-year-old children across European countries (national/regional epidemiological surveys, 2011-2022)

Unemployment rate was not independently associated with DMFT category in the adjusted model (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.23); not GRADE-rated.

1 finding from 1 review