Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

156 questions · 165 findings · 21 reviews · Orthodontics · All outcomes

No studies found 34 · 20.6%GRADE not reported 77 · 46.7%Very low 39 · 23.6%Low 13 · 7.9%Moderate 2 · 1.2%High 0 · 0%

Fixed prostheses cemented to prepared teeth after extraction or decoronation of the ankylosed teeth vs Conventional orthodontic treatment or follow-up with no specific treatment for ankylosis

Outcome not reported · Any patient with ankylosis and displacement of permanent front teeth diagnosed by clinical and radiographic assessment, with or without…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Pre-drilling mini-screw implant vs Self-drilling mini-screw implant

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

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

1 finding from 1 review

Pre-drilling mini-screw implant vs Self-drilling mini-screw implant

Patient perception: pain · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage
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

Ibuprofen taken pre-emptively (about 1 hour before treatment) vs Ibuprofen taken post-treatment

Rescue analgesia · People undergoing orthodontic treatment (any age; 9 to 34 years in included studies)

Ibuprofen taken pre-emptively (about 1 hour before treatment) showed no clear difference in rescue analgesia compared with ibuprofen taken post-treatment; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Ibuprofen taken pre-emptively (about 1 hour before treatment) vs Ibuprofen taken post-treatment

Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · People undergoing orthodontic treatment (any age; 9 to 34 years in included studies)

It is very uncertain whether ibuprofen taken pre-emptively (about 1 hour before treatment) changes pain intensity (VAS 0-100 mm) compared with ibuprofen taken post-treatment (very low certainty).

3 findings 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

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

Reported incidence or prevalence of root resorption of the impacted canine and/or incisors and/or first premolars · 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

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