Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

8 questions · 8 findings · 2 reviews

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 7 · 87.5%Very low 1 · 12.5%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Self-ligating brackets vs Conventional brackets

Time for ligation (seconds, to ligate six brackets) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Self-ligating brackets led to lower time for ligation (seconds, to ligate six brackets) compared with conventional brackets; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Active self-ligating brackets vs Passive self-ligating brackets

Time to alignment · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Active self-ligating brackets showed no clear difference in time to alignment (days) compared with passive self-ligating brackets; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Active self-ligating brackets vs Passive self-ligating brackets

Amount of crowding (upper anterior crowding) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth
1 finding from 1 review
  • Orthodontic treatment for crowded teeth in children 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
    baseline
    Only baseline upper anterior crowding reported (Pandis 2010a, n=70); evidence of baseline imbalance between groups (P=0.04); no post-treatment between-group crowding estimate reported.
    1 study
    GRADE not reported

Self-ligating brackets vs Conventional brackets

Time to alignment · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Self-ligating brackets showed no clear difference in time to alignment (days) compared with conventional brackets; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Self-ligating brackets vs Conventional brackets

Lower incisor inclination (lingual tipping and retrusion) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Self-ligating brackets showed no clear difference in lower incisors to mandible (inclination, degrees) compared with conventional brackets; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Self-ligating brackets vs Conventional brackets

Amount of crowding (lower incisor crowding) at 10 weeks · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

It is very uncertain whether self-ligating brackets changes amount of crowding (lower incisor crowding) at 10 weeks compared with conventional brackets (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Self-ligating brackets vs Conventional brackets

Harms (discomfort, periodontal/gingival health, root resorption) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth
1 finding from 1 review
  • Orthodontic treatment for crowded teeth in children 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
    up to 9 months
    No evidence of differences between self-ligating and conventional brackets for discomfort (Atik 2014, Miles 2010), plaque/gingival index and probing depth (Atik 2014), or maxillary incisor root resorption (Aras 2018).…
    3 studies
    GRADE not reported

Self-ligating brackets (Damon System) vs Fixed tooth-borne expansion (Hyrax)

Crossbite correction · Children and adults with a posterior crossbite, without a Class III skeletal relationship, cleft lip or palate (or both), or other…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Nam 2020: Damon 41/41 vs Hyrax 41/41; NS (no difference in crossbite correction; greater transverse molar/premolar expansion with Hyrax)
    1 study · 82 participants
    GRADE not reported