Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

31 questions · 31 findings · 5 reviews · Orthodontics

No studies found 14 · 45.2%GRADE not reported 14 · 45.2%Very low 0 · 0%Low 2 · 6.5%Moderate 1 · 3.2%High 0 · 0%

Coated superelastic NiTi wire (BioCosmetic, Titanol, TP Aesthetic or Tooth Tone) vs A different coated superelastic NiTi wire

Alignment rate · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)
1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment without extraction of permanent teeth vs No treatment (or delayed treatment)

Cephalometric measurements (ANB change and front teeth inclination changes) · Children (80% aged <= 16 years) with a Class II division 2 malocclusion (deep bite and retroclined upper front teeth)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment without extraction of permanent teeth vs Orthodontic treatment involving extraction of permanent teeth

Cephalometric measurements (ANB change and front teeth inclination changes) · Children (80% aged <= 16 years) with a Class II division 2 malocclusion (deep bite and retroclined upper front teeth)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

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

Self etching primer (one-step etchant-and-primer technique) vs Conventional etchants (two-step etch and prime method using 37% phosphoric acid)

Damage to the teeth (e.g. tooth decay) · Children and adults with fixed orthodontic brackets bonded to incisors, canines and premolars

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Self etching primer (one-step etchant-and-primer technique) vs Conventional etchants (two-step etch and prime method using 37% phosphoric acid)

Bond failure rate · Children and adults with fixed orthodontic brackets bonded to incisors, canines and premolars

Self etching primers (one-step etchant and primer system) showed no clear difference in bond failure rate compared with conventional etchants (two-step etch and prime method using 37%… (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Self etching primer (one-step etchant-and-primer technique) vs Conventional etchants (two-step etch and prime method using 37% phosphoric acid)

Participant satisfaction · Children and adults with fixed orthodontic brackets bonded to incisors, canines and premolars

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Self etching primer (one-step etchant-and-primer technique) vs Conventional etchants (two-step etch and prime method using 37% phosphoric acid)

Decay (decalcification) associated with or around the etching field · Children and adults with fixed orthodontic brackets bonded to incisors, canines and premolars
1 finding from 1 review
  • Decay (decalcification) associated with or around the etching field: Only one study (Ghiz 2009) assessed this outcome but data were reported at the tooth level rather than at the participant level and therefore was not…
    1 study · 25 participants
    GRADE not reported

Early loading of mini-screw implant vs Delayed loading of mini-screw implant

Success of the anchorage device · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage

Early loading of mini-screw implant showed no clear difference in success of the anchorage device compared with delayed loading of mini-screw implant; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Dual mini-screw implant vs Single mini-screw implant

Residual overjet at the end of treatment · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Acceptability · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)
1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Adverse events · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) probably leads to lower mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.) (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Success or failure of the anchorage device · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)
1 finding from 1 review

Dual mini-screw implant vs Single mini-screw implant

Success of the anchorage device · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage

Dual mini-screw implant showed no clear difference in success of the anchorage device compared with single mini-screw implant; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Dual mini-screw implant vs Single mini-screw implant

Duration of space closure · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage

Dual mini-screw implant showed no clear difference in duration of space closure compared with single mini-screw implant; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Residual overjet at the end of treatment · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review