Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

46 questions · 51 findings · 5 reviews · Orthodontics

No studies found 22 · 43.1%GRADE not reported 18 · 35.3%Very low 10 · 19.6%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 1 · 2%High 0 · 0%

Single-strand superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Coaxial superelastic NiTi arch wire

Alignment rate · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)

Single-strand superelastic NiTi arch wire probably leads to lower alignment rate compared with coaxial superelastic NiTi arch wire (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Reported improvement in the position of the ectopic canine measured from radiographs · 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

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

Root resorption of adjacent permanent teeth caused by the PDC · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

Extraction of the primary (baby) canine (single primary tooth… showed no clear difference in root resorption of adjacent permanent teeth caused by the PDC compared with no extraction (non-intervention control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Effect of severity of PDC displacement towards the midline on the proportion of successful eruptions · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)
1 finding from 1 review

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

Time taken for the canine to erupt into the mouth · 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

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

Incidence of eruption of the PDC into the mouth · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

It is very uncertain whether extraction of the primary (baby) canine (single primary tooth… changes incidence of eruption of the PDC into the mouth compared with no extraction (non-intervention control) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Patient-reported outcomes (pain, discomfort and analgesic use) · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)
1 finding from 1 review

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

Any other adverse effects of the interventions, such as gingival disease and demineralisation · 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

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

Incidence of successfully erupted PDC that were favourably positioned · 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

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

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

Costs and cost‐effectiveness · 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

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

Number of participants referred for surgical exposure of the PDC · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

It is very uncertain whether extraction of the primary (baby) canine (single primary tooth… changes number of participants referred for surgical exposure of the PDC compared with no extraction (non-intervention control) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Incidence of new ICLs (mean number of new lesions per subject) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances, followed for development of new ICLs

Patients developed on average about 2.29 new ICLs during fixed orthodontic treatment (95% CI 1.12-3.46; 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)

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)

Incidence of new ICLs (proportion of tooth surfaces developing new lesions) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances, followed for development of new ICLs

About 15% of tooth surfaces developed new ICLs during fixed orthodontic treatment (pooled 0.15, 95% CI 0.08-0.26; 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)

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