Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

42 questions · 42 findings · 5 reviews · All outcomes

No studies found 14 · 33.3%GRADE not reported 12 · 28.6%Very low 9 · 21.4%Low 7 · 16.7%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Orthodontic treatment with appliances inducing stable, permanent orthodontic tooth movement (splints worn 8 to 12 weeks and surgical interventions excluded) vs Control: no treatment, placebo, or reassurance

Limitation of movement · Adults aged 18 years or older with clinically diagnosed TMD (exhibiting two or more of the listed signs and/or symptoms)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment with appliances inducing stable, permanent orthodontic tooth movement (splints worn 8 to 12 weeks and surgical interventions excluded) vs Control: no treatment, placebo, or reassurance

Patient quality of life · Adults aged 18 years or older with clinically diagnosed TMD (exhibiting two or more of the listed signs and/or symptoms)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment with appliances inducing stable, permanent orthodontic tooth movement (splints worn 8 to 12 weeks and surgical interventions excluded) vs Control: no treatment, placebo, or reassurance

Adverse effects on oral health · Adults aged 18 years or older with clinically diagnosed TMD (exhibiting two or more of the listed signs and/or symptoms)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment with appliances inducing stable, permanent orthodontic tooth movement (splints worn 8 to 12 weeks and surgical interventions excluded) vs Control: no treatment, placebo, or reassurance

Development of TMD (onset/incidence of signs and symptoms) · People without TMD at baseline undergoing orthodontic treatment (TMD clinically absent at baseline); no age restriction provided follow-up…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment with appliances inducing stable, permanent orthodontic tooth movement (splints worn 8 to 12 weeks and surgical interventions excluded) vs Control: no treatment, placebo, or reassurance

Overall symptoms, pain and headache (relief from symptoms assessed by global measures) · Adults aged 18 years or older with clinically diagnosed TMD (exhibiting two or more of the listed signs and/or symptoms)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Low‐level laser therapy vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Rate of orthodontic tooth movement during space closure stage (maxillary arch), mm/month · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment

It is very uncertain whether low level laser therapy (LLLT) changes rate of orthodontic tooth movement during space closure stage… compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Light-emitting diode (LED) photobiomodulation vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) during alignment stage · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Rate of orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) during space closure stage (en masse, mm/month) · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed or removable appliances

Light vibrational forces (LVF) showed no clear difference in rate of orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) during space closure stage… compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (placebo or no adjunct) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Low‐level laser therapy vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) during alignment stage · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment

It is very uncertain whether low level laser therapy (LLLT) changes rate of orthodontic tooth movement during alignment stage… compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Rate of orthodontic tooth movement with removable orthodontic aligners · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed or removable appliances

Light vibrational forces (LVF) showed no clear difference in rate of orthodontic tooth movement with removable orthodontic aligners compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (placebo or no adjunct); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Light-emitting diode (LED) photobiomodulation vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Rate of orthodontic tooth movement during space closure stage (maxillary canine distalisation), mm/day · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment

It is very uncertain whether light-emitting diode (LED) photobiomodulation changes rate of orthodontic tooth movement during space closure stage… compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) during alignment stage · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed or removable appliances

Light vibrational forces (LVF) showed no clear difference in orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) during alignment stage (reduction… compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (placebo or no adjunct) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

The wand (computer-controlled LA delivery system) vs other local anaesthetic

Self- or observational assessment of intraoperative distress/pain/acceptance of treatment during provision of LA: pain-related behaviour (any disruptive behaviour/sudden reaction/movement) · Children and adolescents having dental treatment under local anaesthetic without general anaesthesia
1 finding from 1 review

Intra-articular injection of sodium hyaluronate vs corticosteroid injection

Extent of mandibular movement (maximum jaw opening, lateral and contralateral movement, jaw protrusion) · Adults (>18 years) with temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis (TMJ OA) diagnosed by RDC/TMD or compatible criteria

Intra-articular injection of sodium hyaluronate showed no clear difference in extent of mandibular movement (maximum jaw opening, lateral and… compared with intra-articular injection of corticosteroids (betamethasone); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Interventions for managing temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
    14 days to 6 months
    None of the mean differences between interventions for the measures of jaw movements (maximum jaw opening, lateral movement to affected side, contralateral movement, jaw protrusion; Analyses 1.16-1.27) showed…
    1 study · 40 participants
    GRADE not reported

Oral diclofenac sodium (NSAID) vs splint

Pain (on movement and on palpation of the affected TMJ) · Adults (>18 years) with temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis (TMJ OA) diagnosed by RDC/TMD or compatible criteria
1 finding from 1 review
  • Interventions for managing temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
    1 week and 3 months
    Data for pain on movement or pain on palpation of the affected TMJ (both at 1 week and 3 months) could not be extracted, as they are described as percentages of an unclear total number. Narratively, diclofenac sodium…
    1 study
    GRADE not reported

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Costs · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed or removable appliances

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Light-emitting diode (LED) photobiomodulation vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Discomfort/pain · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment

It is very uncertain whether light-emitting diode (LED) photobiomodulation changes patient perception of pain and discomfort (VAS 0 to 100 mm) compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Change in angulation of teeth adjacent to the space (molar and canine tipping/rotation) · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed or removable appliances
1 finding from 1 review

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Discomfort/pain · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed or removable appliances

Light vibrational forces (LVF) showed no clear difference in patient perception of pain and discomfort (VAS 0 to 100 mm),… compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (placebo or no adjunct) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review