Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

47 questions · 54 findings · 8 reviews · Orthodontics

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 35 · 64.8%Very low 13 · 24.1%Low 4 · 7.4%Moderate 2 · 3.7%High 0 · 0%

Fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances (exposure) vs None (single-group prevalence/incidence estimate)

Prevalence of ICLs (mean number of lesions per subject) · Patients (permanent dentition) during or after fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances

Patients had on average about 2.24 ICLs per subject during/after fixed orthodontic treatment (95% CI 1.79-2.70; very low certainty; very high heterogeneity).

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances (exposure) vs None (single-group prevalence/incidence estimate)

Association between orthodontic treatment duration and ICLs prevalence · Patients (permanent dentition) during or after fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances

ICLs prevalence increased with longer orthodontic treatment duration (meta-regression P=.01; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances (exposure) vs None (single-group prevalence/incidence estimate)

Prevalence of ICLs (proportion of tooth surfaces affected) · Patients (permanent dentition) during or after fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances

About 22% of tooth surfaces showed ICLs during/after fixed orthodontic treatment (pooled 0.22, 95% CI 0.14-0.33; very low certainty; extreme heterogeneity).

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances (exposure) vs None (single-group prevalence/incidence estimate)

Prevalence of ICLs (proportion of subjects affected) · Patients (permanent dentition) during or after fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances

Around 57% of patients had ICLs during or after fixed orthodontic treatment (pooled prevalence 0.57, 95% CI 0.48-0.65; very low certainty; very high heterogeneity).

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride varnish vs Placebo varnish, resin sealant, or standard care (oral hygiene instructions)

Prevalence of white spot lesions (WSL) at debonding, subject level · Healthy adolescents and adults undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed multi-bracket appliances

Fluoride varnish applied regularly during fixed orthodontic treatment may reduce the prevalence of white spot lesions at debonding (pooled RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.98), but the certainty of evidence is very low.

1 finding from 1 review

Adhesive precoated (APC) flash-free brackets (minimal excess adhesive) vs Conventional ceramic brackets

Enamel demineralization (DIAGNOdent score) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

Adhesive precoated flash-free brackets showed no demineralization difference, with certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Adhesive precoated (APC) flash-free brackets (minimal excess adhesive) vs Conventional brackets

White spot lesions assessed by laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35)

Two studies found adhesive flash-free brackets did not clinically reduce enamel demineralization or white spot lesions versus conventional brackets, though they reduced pathogenic bacteria (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Farzanegan 2021 = Transbond XT + 1% chitosan + 1% TiO2 (co-intervention); Mollabashi 2022 = TiO2-only composite (1 wt%) vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Enamel demineralization / white spot lesion prevention (DIAGNOdent, enamel mineral content) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35)

Two small RCTs gave inconsistent results for TiO2-modified adhesives/composites on enamel demineralization (one favorable on DIAGNOdent, one no difference in mineral content); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Clear aligners (Invisalign / thermoformed aligners) vs Fixed appliances

Lactobacilli presence (CFU > 10^5) · Adults undergoing orthodontic treatment

Aligners probably lower the risk of high lactobacilli counts versus fixed appliances in adults at 3 months (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.47; low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Clear aligners (Invisalign / thermoformed aligners) vs Fixed appliances

S. mutans presence (CFU > 10^5) · Adults undergoing orthodontic treatment

Aligners probably lower the risk of high S. mutans counts versus fixed appliances in adults at 3 months (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.49; low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Clear aligners (Invisalign / thermoformed aligners) vs Fixed appliances

S. mutans presence · Adolescents/teenagers undergoing orthodontic treatment

A single study found no significant difference in S. mutans presence between aligners and fixed appliances in adolescents at 1 month (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.14; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride-releasing glass ionomer-based bonding agent vs Non-fluoride glass ionomer-based bonding agent

Initiation of white spot lesions (WSL), visual-tactile assessment · Patients of any age (11-40 years) receiving comprehensive/fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances

For a glass-ionomer-based bonding agent (single study), fluoride release significantly reduced WSL initiation (RR 0.64); subgroup not separately GRADE-rated.

1 finding from 1 review

Sealant/coating agent WITH fluoride release applied to teeth with fixed appliances vs No sealant (control/no treatment)

Initiation of white spot lesions (WSL), visual-tactile assessment · Patients of any age (11-40 years) receiving comprehensive/fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances

Among fluoride-releasing sealants, the reduction in WSL initiation versus no sealant was not statistically significant (RR 0.69); subgroup not separately GRADE-rated.

1 finding from 1 review

Coating material (bonding material or sealant) WITH fluoride release vs Coating material WITHOUT fluoride release

Initiation of white spot lesions (WSL), visual-tactile assessment · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)

Fluoride-releasing coating material did not show a statistically significant reduction in new white spot lesions versus non-fluoride coating (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Glass ionomer cement vs Resin adhesive

Initiation of white spot lesions (WSL), visual-tactile assessment · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)

Glass ionomer cement did not show a statistically significant difference in new white spot lesions versus resin adhesive (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Glass ionomer cement (for bracket bonding) vs Resin adhesive

Initiation of white spot lesions (WSL), visual-tactile assessment · Patients of any age (11-40 years) receiving comprehensive/fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances

There is no clear difference in WSL initiation between glass ionomer cement and resin adhesive for bracket bonding (RR 0.72, not significant); certainty of evidence is very low.

1 finding from 1 review

Sealant (any type) vs No sealant (control/no treatment)

Initiation of white spot lesions (WSL), visual-tactile assessment · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)

Sealant use reduced the incidence of new white spot lesions versus no sealant (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Compomer (polyacid-modified composite, fluoride-releasing) for bonding brackets vs Compomer bonding agent without fluoride release

Initiation of white spot lesions (WSL), visual-tactile assessment · Patients of any age (11-40 years) receiving comprehensive/fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances

For compomer-based bonding agents, fluoride release did not significantly change WSL initiation (RR 0.71); subgroup not separately GRADE-rated.

1 finding from 1 review

Sealant/coating agent WITHOUT fluoride release applied to teeth with fixed appliances vs No sealant (control/no treatment)

Initiation of white spot lesions (WSL), visual-tactile assessment · Patients of any age (11-40 years) receiving comprehensive/fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances

Among non-fluoride sealants, WSL initiation was significantly reduced versus no sealant (RR 0.69); subgroup not separately GRADE-rated.

1 finding from 1 review

Sealant or coating agent (with or without fluoride release) applied to teeth with fixed appliances vs No sealant (control/no treatment)

White spot lesions assessed by laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent) · Patients of any age (11-40 years) receiving comprehensive/fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances

White spot lesions were also measured by laser fluorescence in 3 sealant-vs-no-sealant studies, but no meta-analysis was possible due to incompatible reporting.

1 finding from 1 review