Dental and skeletal effects of palatal expansion techniques: a systematic review of the current evidence from systematic reviews and meta‐analyses

The aim was to assess the quality and to summarise the findings of the Systematic Reviews (SRs) and Meta‐Analyses (MAs) on the dental and skeletal effects of maxillary expansion. Electronic and manual searches have been independently conducted by two investigators, up to February 2015. SRs and MAs on the dentoalveolar and skeletal effects of fixed expanders were included. The methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews). The design of the primary studies included in each SR/MA was assessed with the LRD (Level of Research Design scoring). The evidence for each outcome was rated applying a pre‐determined scale. Twelve SRs/MAs were included. The AMSTAR scores ranged from 4 to 10. Two SRs/MAs included only RCTs. The current findings from SRs/MAs support with high evidence a significant increase in the short‐term of maxillary dentoalveolar transversal dimensions after Rapid Maxillary Expansion (RME). The same effect is reported with moderate evidence after Slow Maxillary Expansion (SME). However, there is moderate evidence of a non‐significant difference between the two expansion modalities concerning the short‐term dentoalveolar effects. With both RME and SME, significant increase of skeletal transversal dimension in the short‐term is reported, and the skeletal expansion is always smaller than the dentoalveolar. Even though dental relapse to some extent is present, long‐term results of the dentoalveolar effects show an increase of the transversal dimension, supported by moderate evidence for RME and low evidence for SME. Skeletal long‐term effects are reported only with RME, supported by very low evidence.     

Class II functional orthopaedic treatment: a systematic review of systematic reviews

This Systematic Review (SR) aims to assess the quality of SRs and Meta‐Analyses (MAs) on functional orthopaedic treatment of Class II malocclusion and to summarise and rate the reported effects. Electronic and manual searches were conducted until June 2014. SRs and MAs focusing on the effects of functional orthopaedic treatment of Class II malocclusion in growing patients were included. The methodological quality of the included papers was assessed using the AMSTAR (Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews). The design of the primary studies included in each SR was assessed with Level of Research Design scoring. The evidence of the main outcomes was summarised and rated according to a scale of statements. 14 SRs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The appliances evaluated were as follows: Activator (2 studies), Twin Block (4 studies), headgear (3 studies), Herbst (2 studies), Jasper Jumper (1 study), Bionator (1 study) and Fränkel‐2 (1 study). Four studies reviewed several functional appliances, as a group. The mean AMSTAR score was 6 (ranged 2–10). Six SRs included only controlled clinical trials (CCTs), three SRs included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs), four SRs included both CCTs and RCTs and one SR included also expert opinions. There was some evidence of reduction of the overjet, with different appliances except from headgear; there was some evidence of small maxillary growth restrain with Twin Block and headgear; there was some evidence of elongation of mandibular length, but the clinical relevance of this results is still questionable; there was insufficient evidence to determine an effect on soft tissues.     

Evaluation of methodology and quality characteristics of systematic reviews in orthodontics

Systematic reviews (SRs) are published with an increasing rate in many fields of biomedical literature, including orthodontics. Although SRs should consolidate the evidence-based characteristics of contemporary orthodontic practice, doubts on the validity of their conclusions have been frequently expressed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodology and quality characteristics of orthodontic SRs as well as to assess their quality of reporting during the last years. Electronic databases were searched for SRs (without any meta-analytical data synthesis) in the field of orthodontics, indexed up to the start of 2010. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool was used for quality assessment of the included articles. Data were analyzed with Student's t-test, one-way ANOVA, and linear regression. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated to represent changes during the years in reporting of key items associated with quality. A total of 110 SRs were included in this evaluation. About half of the SRs (46.4%) were published in orthodontic journals, while few (5.5%) were updates of previously published reviews. Using the AMSTAR tool, thirty (27.3%) of the SRs were found to be of low quality, 63 (57.3%) of medium quality, and 17 (15.5%) of high quality. No significant trend for quality improvement was observed during the last years. The overall quality of orthodontic SRs may be considered as medium. Although the number of orthodontic SRs has increased over the last decade, their quality characteristics can be characterized as moderate.     

Do fixed orthodontic appliances adversely affect the periodontium? A systematic review of systematic reviews

This overview aimed to summarize the available systematic reviews that assess the effects of treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances (FOAs) on the periodontium. Unrestricted electronic search of nine databases and additional manual searches were performed up to January 2019. Systematic reviews and meta analyses that assessed the effect of FOAs on the periodontal parameters were included. The methodological quality of the included reviews was evaluated using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews2 (AMSTAR 2). The initial search yielded 2529 articles from which 19 were included in the current study. AMSTAR 2 scores ranged from critically low to high quality. The quality of evidence ranged from very low to low. The superiority of the periodontal outcomes of self-ligating brackets over conventional brackets could not be proven. The available evidence regarding the effects of FOAs on the periodontium is controversial and of very low quality. The short-term effects of FOAs were temporary worsening the periodontal parameters. Some conclusions regarding the periodontal outcomes of self-ligating brackets could be withdrawn. Future high-quality trials are required. The review was registered at the International prospective register of systematic reviews with registration number CRD42018106662.     

Methodological Quality Assessment of Meta-analyses and Systematic Reviews of the Relationship Between Periodontal and Systemic Diseases

ObjectivesThe aims of this article are to identify all the published systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) that studied the relationship between periodontal and systemic diseases and to assess their quality using 2 scales (the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire [OQAQ] and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews [AMSTAR] checklist).MethodsFor SRs and MAs to be included, they should have investigated one of the following systemic diseases: pulmonary conditions, cardiac conditions, endocrine conditions, cancer, blood disorders, psychological conditions, anxiety, depression, mood disorders, and several other diseases. Two investigators screened MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The tools used to evaluate quality were the AMSTAR scale and OQAQ. The protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018102208).ResultsThe search strategy found 691 unique articles, 42 of which met the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. Diabetes mellitus was the most investigated disease (14 out of 42 studies), followed by obesity (11 studies) and cardiovascular diseases (5 studies). A total of 40 reviews reported on the characteristics of included studies, and, as per the AMSTAR scale, 39 reviews had an a priori design. The number of reviews that fulfilled the status of publication criterion was the lowest (7 reviews only), followed by the number used in the assessment of publication bias (11 reviews). The number of high-quality reviews was higher with the OQAQ than with the AMSTAR checklist (33 vs 25 studies), but the AMSTAR showed a higher number of medium-quality reviews than the OQAQ (14 vs 6 studies). Both showed the same number of low-quality reviews.ConclusionsHigh-quality SRs and MAs are crucial to understanding the relationship between systemic and periodontal diseases. Medical practitioners must be able to inform patients about oral health and specific periodontal health concerns.     

Efficacy and safety of different interventions to accelerate maxillary canine retraction following premolar extraction: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Decreasing orthodontic treatment duration is at the forefront of innovation for clinical orthodontics. This network meta-analysis aimed to determine the relative efficacy and safety of treatments for accelerated orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) in patients undergoing extraction of maxillary first premolars followed by canine retraction in any orthodontic setting. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL and SCOPUS were searched (from inception to 20 April 2020). Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were meta-analysed to estimate the rate of tooth movement, 95% credible interval and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) in the first 3 months following the application of the adjunctive accelerative method. Eligible RCTs were assessed by Cochrane risk of bias tool, and quality of evidence was assessed by GRADE approach, obtained from CINeMA web application. Interventions were ranked for efficacy and reviewed for safety. Nineteen studies pertaining to eight interventions, with data from 415 patients were included. Quality of evidence was very low to moderate. Very low-to low-quality evidence suggests that corticotomy is an efficacious and safe adjunctive treatment to accelerate OTM in comparison with conventional treatment in the first 2 months of treatment. Low-quality evidence suggests that piezocision and micro-osteoperforations (MOP) are efficacious and safe adjunctive treatments only in the first month of treatment. Frequent MOP in conjunction with low-level laser therapy appeared to be an efficacious and safe adjunctive treatment only in the first month following its initial application but not thereafter.     

Management of TMD: evidence from systematic reviews and meta‐analyses

Summary This systematic review (SR) synthesises recent evidence and assesses the methodological quality of published SRs in the management of temporomandibular disorders (TMD). A systematic literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Bandolier databases for 1987 to September 2009. Two investigators evaluated the methodological quality of each identified SR using two measurement tools: the assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) and level of research design scoring. Thirty‐eight SRs met inclusion criteria and 30 were analysed: 23 qualitative SRs and seven meta‐analyses. Ten SRs were related to occlusal appliances, occlusal adjustment or bruxism; eight to physical therapy; seven to pharmacologic treatment; four to TMJ and maxillofacial surgery; and six to behavioural therapy and multimodal treatment. The median AMSTAR score was 6 (range 2–11). Eighteen of the SRs were based on randomised clinical trials (RCTs), three were based on case–control studies, and nine were a mix of RCTs and case series. Most SRs had pain and clinical measures as primary outcome variables, while few SRs reported psychological status, daily activities, or quality of life. There is some evidence that the following can be effective in alleviating TMD pain: occlusal appliances, acupuncture, behavioural therapy, jaw exercises, postural training, and some pharmacological treatments. Evidence for the effect of electrophysical modalities and surgery is insufficient, and occlusal adjustment seems to have no effect. One limitation of most of the reviewed SRs was that the considerable variation in methodology between the primary studies made definitive conclusions impossible.     

Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews on Periodontal Regeneration in Humans

Background: Systematic reviews represent the highest form of evidence in the current hierarchy of evidence‐based dentistry. Critical analysis of published systematic reviews may help to analyze their strengths and weaknesses and to identify areas that need future improvement. The aim of this overview is to determine and compare the quality of systematic reviews published in the field of periodontal regeneration using established checklists, such as the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) guidelines. Methods: A systematic search was conducted to retrieve reviews on periodontal regeneration in humans. A total of 14 systematic reviews were selected using a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers appraised the quality of the selected reviews using AMSTAR guidelines. Each article was given an AMSTAR total score, based on the number of AMSTAR criteria that were fulfilled. The quality of included reviews was further assessed using a checklist proposed in 2003. Results: Only one of the selected systematic reviews satisfied all the AMSTAR guidelines, whereas two reviews satisfied just two of the 11 items. This study shows that published systematic reviews on periodontal regeneration exhibit significant structural and methodologic variability. Quality assessment using the additional checklist further confirmed the variability in the way systematic reviews were conducted and/or reported. Conclusion: Consideration of guidelines for quality assessment, such as AMSTAR, when designing and conducting systematic reviews may increase the validity and clinical applicability of future reviews.     

Extent and quality of systematic review evidence related to minimum intervention in dentistry: essential oils, powered toothbrushes, triclosan, xylitol

Objective: To investigate extent and quality of current systematic review evidence regarding: powered toothbrushes, triclosan toothpaste, essential oil mouthwashes, xylitol chewing gum. Methods: Five databases were searched for systematic reviews until 13 November 2010. Inclusion criteria: relevant to topic, systematic review according to title and/or abstract, published in English. Article exclusion criteria were based on QUOROM recommendations for the reporting of systematic review methods. Systematic review quality was judged using the AMSTAR tool. All trials included by reviews were assessed for selection bias. Results: 119 articles were found, of which 11 systematic reviews were included. Of these, six were excluded and five accepted: one for triclosan toothpaste; one for xylitol chewing gum; two for powered toothbrushes; one for essential oil mouthwashes. AMSTAR scores: triclosan toothpaste 7; powered toothbrushes 9 and 11; xylitol chewing gum 9; essential oil mouthwashes 8. In total, 75 (out of 76) reviewed trials were identified. In‐depth assessment showed a high risk of selection bias for all trials. Conclusions: The extent of available systematic review evidence is low. Although the few identified systematic reviews could be rated as of medium and high quality, the validity of their conclusions needs to be treated with caution, owing to high risk of selection bias in the reviewed trials. High quality randomised control trials are needed in order to provide convincing evidence regarding true clinical efficacy.     

An AMSTAR assessment of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of oral healthcare interventions published in the Journal of Applied Oral Science (JAOS)

Background

Systematic reviews are not an assembly of anecdotes but a distillation of current best available evidence on a particular topic and as such have an important role to play in evidence-based healthcare. A substantial proportion of these systematic reviews focus on interventions, and are able to provide clinicians with the opportunity to understand and translate the best available evidence on the effects of these healthcare interventions into clinical practice. The importance of systematic reviews in summarising and identifying the gaps in evidence which might inform new research initiatives is also widely acknowledged. Their potential impact on practice and research makes their methodological quality especially important as it may directly influence their utility for clinicians, patients and policy makers. The objectives of this study were to identify systematic reviews of oral healthcare interventions published in the Journal of Applied Oral Science (JAOS) and to evaluate their methodological quality using the evaluation tool, AMSTAR.

Methods

Potentially eligible systematic reviews in JAOS were identified through an electronic search of the Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO). Details of the relevant aspects of methodology as reported in these systematic reviews were extracted from the full text publications. Methodological quality was assessed independently by two reviewers using the AMSTAR questionnaire.

Results

Five systematic reviews were identified, one of which was subsequently excluded as it was a review of a diagnostic test. Summary AMSTAR scores for the four included reviews were: 1, 5, 2 and 4 out of a maximum score of 11 (range 1-5, mean 3) with only one of the reviews scoring 5.

Conclusion

AMSTAR evaluation of the methodological quality of the relatively small number of systematic reviews published in JAOS illustrated that there was room for improvement. Pre-publication and editorial appraisal of future systematic reviews might benefit from the application of tools such as AMSTAR and is to be recommended.     

Tooth autotransplantation: An umbrella review

Tooth autotransplantation is a versatile procedure with several clinical applications among patients across different age groups. The success of this procedure depends on multiple factors. Despite the wealth of studies available, no single primary study or systematic review is able to report on every factor affecting the outcomes of autotransplantation. The aims of this umbrella review were to evaluate treatment-related and patient-related outcomes of autotransplantation and to assess the pre-, peri- or post-operative factors that could affect these. An umbrella review was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. A literature search of five databases was performed up to 25 September 2022. Systematic Reviews (SR) with and without meta-analysis evaluating autotransplantation were included. Calibration among reviewers was carried out prior to study selection, data extraction and Risk of Bias (RoB) assessment. Study overlap was calculated using corrected covered area. Meta-meta-analysis (MMA) was performed for suitable SRs. The AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool was used to evaluate the quality of evidence. Seventeen SRs met the inclusion criteria. Only two SRs were suitable for conduct of MMA on autotransplantation of open apex teeth. The 5-year and 10-year survival rates were >95%. A narrative summary on factors that could affect autotransplantation outcomes and comparisons of autotransplantation to other treatment options were reported. Five SRs were rated as ‘low quality’ and 12 SRs were rated as ‘critically low quality’ in the AMSTAR 2 RoB assessment. In order to facilitate a more homogenous pool of data for subsequent meta-analysis, an Autotransplantation Outcome Index was also proposed to standardise the definition of outcomes. Autotransplantation of teeth with open apices have a high survival rate. Future studies should standardise the reporting of clinical and radiographic findings, as well as the definition of outcomes.     

Methodological and Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Endodontics

Introduction

The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to evaluate the quality of SRs and meta-analyses (MAs) in endodontics.

A flood tide of systematic reviews on endodontic posts: methodological assessment using of R-AMSTAR

Objectives

To help the dental practitioner solve a specific clinical problem, systematic reviews (SRs) are seen as the best guide. In addition to the unmanageable quantity of SRs, however, one should be aware of their variable quality. The present review describes the methodological quality of SRs on postendodontic restorations to work out the value of these reviews for the dental practitioner.

Methodology

SRs were searched in April 2012, independently and in triplicate. Post survival was used as measure of outcome. The methodological quality of included SRs was assessed with the Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) checklist. Kappa statistics were used to assess reviewer agreement.

Results

Three hundred sixty-three papers were retrieved from the initial search. Ten SRs were included. One SR achieved a high R-AMSTAR score, whereas the other nine SRs achieved scores that indicate a substantial lack of methodological quality. Especially the items “grey literature,” “combination of findings,” “likelihood of publication bias,” and conflict of interest” showed low R-AMSTAR scores. The three reviews with the highest R-AMSTAR scores tended to conclude that fewer failures occurred when using nonmetal posts. The reviewer agreement was excellent (kappa ranged from 0.79 to 0.85) in the R-AMSTAR classification.

Conclusion

The approach presented revealed a lack of SRs with high methodological quality. Thus, no decisive conclusion can be drawn with respect to this topic. It appears that there is a trend for the superiority of fiber-reinforced posts.

Clinical relevance

SRs must be of high methodological quality. This can be achieved by taking into consideration the results of this review. Improved methodological quality would make SRs more supportive for the general practitioner.     

Clinical performance of short versus standard dental implants in vertically augmented bone: an overview of systematic reviews

Objective

To answer the question: What do we know so far about the clinical performance of short implants (≤ 7 mm) when compared to standard length implants in vertically augmented bone, as well as which is the overall confidence of the systematic reviews (SRs) about this topic?

Materials and methods

An overview of SRs was conducted. The searches were performed in six electronic databases and grey literature. SRs about short (≤ 7 mm) versus standard dental implants performance in vertically augmented bone were included. The assessed outcomes were marginal bone loss (MBL), implant survival (IS), prosthetic (PC) and biological complications (BC), costs, surgical time, and patient satisfaction. AMSTAR 2 was used to evaluate the overall confidence of included SRs.

Results

Thirteen SRs were included. Nine of twelve SRs reported a lower MBL for the short implant group. All the included SRs showed no difference in the IS between groups. A higher rate of BC was reported for standard-length implants in four out of five SRs. No differences regarding PC were reported in four of five SRs. Information related to patient preference, cost, and surgery time were underreported. The confidence evaluation of the SRs was stratified as low for five SRs and critically low for eight SRs.

Conclusions

In an overall low-to-very low confidence levels, short implants appear to perform better in the mid-term (up to 5 years) than standard dental implants associated with vertical bone augmentation regarding MBL and BC, but they have a similar performance regarding IS rates and PC. There is an imperative need to improve the methodological quality of SRs, and efforts should focus on conducting RCTs to broaden the knowledge on this topic.

Clinical relevance

Short implants could represent a viable, simpler, and less invasive treatment when available bone height is limited.

     

An overview of systematic reviews on the effectiveness of periodontal treatment to improve glycaemic control

Several systematic reviews with meta‐analyses on the effectiveness of periodontal treatment to improve glycaemic control have been published. So far no overview of these systematic reviews has been performed. The main objective of this report was to assess critically these systematic reviews to provide the reader with a high‐level synthesis of research evidence. MEDLINE (via PubMed) and EMBASE databases were searched independently and in duplicate to identify systematic reviews with meta‐analyses of clinical studies that assessed the relationship between diabetes mellitus and periodontitis. The last database search was performed on 10 March 2015. The reference lists of included systematic reviews were also scrutinized for further publications. The methodological quality of the included systematic reviews was assessed independently with two validated checklists (AMSTAR and OQAQ) by two authors. Disagreements in the assessment were resolved by consensus. A total of 226 potential publications were initially retrieved. Eleven systematic reviews with meta‐analyses were finally included. Glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was the most commonly used clinical endpoint. Meta‐analytic estimates from systematic reviews generated an average reduction of 0.46% (median 0.40%) of HbA1c in patients with diabetes mellitus who received periodontal treatment. These meta‐analyses had, nevertheless, methodological limitations such as inclusion of trials with different types of risk of bias that hinder more robust conclusions. A recent meta‐analysis that included recently published large randomized controlled trials did not show significant change in the level of HbA1c at the 6 mo follow‐up. The AMSTAR checklist generated results that were more conservative than OQAQ. Findings from this overview do not support the information that periodontal treatment may improve glycaemic control. Methodological issues described in this overview may guide further research on this topic.     

Methodological quality and outcome of systematic reviews reporting on orthopaedic treatment for class III malocclusion: Overview of systematic reviews

Objectives: The aim of this overview of systematic reviews was to investigate methodological quality and outcome of current systematic reviews (SRs) reporting on orthopaedic treatment for class III malocclusion.

Materials and methods: Computerized and manual searches were performed in Medline, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, Embase, LILACS, SciELO, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Angle Orthodontist, European Journal of Orthodontics, Journal of Orthodontics, Conference abstracts and Grey literature. No restrictions were set on language or date of publication. The search covered the starting date of the relevant databases until 30 April 2015. MeSH terms and free-text terms included ‘malocclusion’, ‘Angle class III’, ‘orthodontic appliances’, ‘functional’, facemask, review and meta-analysis. Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the SRs and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR (assessment of multiple systematic reviews).

Results: A total of 222 studies were retrieved and after removal of duplicates, irrelevant studies, literature reviews and surgical approach treatments, 14 SRs and/or meta-analyses were included for qualitative synthesis. Mean AMSTAR score was 7.7/11 with a range of 3–10. There was evidence to demonstrate that face mask therapy can move the maxilla forward whilst causing a backward rotation of the mandible and increased facial height. There was also some evidence of mandibular growth retardation with chin cup therapy.

Conclusions: Orthopaedic appliances can improve a class III malocclusion in growing patients over the short-term; however, each appliance has a characteristic effect on the underlying skeletal pattern.     

Effectiveness of different protocols to reduce postoperative pain following orthognathic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Pain management in orthognathic surgery is essential to enhance recovery, reduce hospital stay, and improve the whole experience of the patient. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate current evidence on pain management in orthognathic surgery.A systematic review of the literature was performed following PRISMA guidelines, and PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry were searched to retrieve randomised clinical trials (RCTs) published until July 2020. RCTs that compared different pre-emptive analgesia and low-level laser therapy (LLLT) with placebo after orthognathic surgery were included. Outcome variables were pain scores and duration of surgery. The quality of evidence was rated according to Cochrane’s tool for assessing risk of bias. Standardised mean difference (SMD) or mean difference (MD) was used to analyse continuous data. There was significant pain reduction within the first 48 hours after pre-emptive analgesia (very low quality evidence, SMD: ?1.329; confidence interval (CI): ?2.030 to ?0.628; p = 0.001) and LLLT (very low quality evidence, SMD: ?0.690; CI: ?1.172 to ?0.207; p = 0.005) versus placebo. Evidence to support pre-emptive analgesia or LLLT effectively reducing pain scores within the first postoperative 48 hours after orthognathic surgery when compared with placebo, was of low quality.     

Effects of interdental cleaning devices in preventing dental caries and periodontal diseases: a scoping review

To identify and map existing evidence on the effectiveness of interdental cleaning devices in preventing dental caries and periodontal diseases, a scoping review was carried out by electronically searching PubMed, Scopus and Embase. Studies on interdental cleaning devices, written in English, and published from January 2008 up to April 2019 were included in the review. Of 1860 studies identified, six systematic reviews (SR) were included in the review. One SR each was on flossing, interdental brushes, wood sticks and oral irrigation. Of two SR on multitude of interdental cleaning devices, one assessed comparative efficacy while the other both the individual and comparative efficacy. All reviews had assessed the heterogeneity and the methodological quality of studies included, and performed data extraction and meta‐analysis where appropriate. Evidence ranged from weak to moderate with very low‐ to low‐certainty for the adjunctive benefit of these devices to control plaque and gingivitis. It warrants long‐term studies with sufficient power and those assessing the impact of interdental cleaning on interproximal caries to corroborate such evidence. Available evidence on the efficacy of interdental cleaning devices suggests that dental practitioners recommend patient‐specific interdental cleaning devices that enable patients to achieve a safe and high standard of interdental cleaning.