Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

13 questions · 13 findings · 6 reviews

No studies found 8 · 61.5%GRADE not reported 3 · 23.1%Very low 0 · 0%Low 2 · 15.4%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Orthodontic treatment need vs No orthodontic treatment need

Poor oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) · Children aged 3-12 years

Orthodontic treatment need was associated with modestly higher odds of poor OHRQoL (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.07-1.18; 3 studies; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Traditional screening (referral card given if the inspecting dentist judges the child needs to see a dentist) vs No screening

Malocclusion or orthodontic treatment needs measured by any validated index · School children (aged 4 to 15 years), primary and secondary schools in the UK and India

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgically-anchored orthodontic treatment (miniplates) vs no intervention

Perceived need for surgery in adulthood · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Low‐level laser therapy vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Patient-reported need for analgesics · 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-emitting diode (LED) photobiomodulation vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Patient-reported need for analgesics · 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

Patient-reported need for analgesics · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed or removable appliances

Light vibrational forces (LVF) showed no clear difference in patient-reported need for analgesics during first week of initial… compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (placebo or no adjunct) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask (RME) or modified facemask vs Other non-surgical orthodontic treatments (mini maxillary protractor, Pushing Splints, modified tandem, Reverse Forsus, reverse Twin Block, reverse chin cup, tongue appliance, Frankel III)

Perceived need for surgery in adulthood · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Vibratory stimulation (vibratory adjuncts) vs No vibration or placebo vibration

Dose/intensity and frequency of pain relief needed (analgesic/rescue medication use) · Adolescents and adults undergoing orthodontic treatment

Vibratory stimulation (vibratory adjuncts) led to lower dose/intensity and frequency of pain relief needed (analgesic/rescue… compared with no vibration or placebo vibration; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Experimental chewing adjuncts (bite wafers or chewing gum) vs No chewing gum, placebo, or control (no adjunct)

Dose/intensity and frequency of pain relief needed (analgesic/rescue medication use) · Adolescents/teenagers undergoing orthodontic treatment
1 finding from 1 review

Extraction of the primary (baby) canine (single primary tooth extraction) vs No extraction (non-intervention control)

Overall treatment time wearing orthodontic appliances · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction vs Single primary (canine) tooth extraction

Overall treatment time wearing orthodontic appliances · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask vs no intervention

Perceived need for surgery in adulthood · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Facemask may leads to higher perceived need for surgery in adulthood compared with untreated control (no treatment) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask (RME) or modified facemask vs Surgically-anchored appliance (miniscrews or miniplates)

Perceived need for surgery in adulthood · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review