OBJECTIVES

This mapping review aimed to identify trends, frequently reviewed topics and assess the methodological quality of recent orthodontic systematic reviews (SRs).

METHODS

SRs published between January 2018 and June 2023 were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data, with a third resolving discrepancies. Methodological quality was evaluated using AMSTAR-2.

RESULTS

From 3,131 initial articles, 430 SRs were included. A publication increase of over 50% occurred from 2019 to 2022. The most frequent topics were palatal expansion (12.6%), techniques to accelerate orthodontic movement (11.6%), and clear aligners (9.3%). Only 18.2% of SRs were rated as high or moderate quality, with those on clear aligners rated the lowest (4.9%). Common methodological weaknesses included a lack of protocol registration, absence of excluded study lists, and failure to address publication bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Orthodontic SRs have increased significantly over the five-year period assessed, with notable increase in contributions from specific countries. However, most SRs exhibited low methodological quality, raising concerns about clinical applicability. Improved adherence to methodological and reporting standards is crucial for enhancing SR quality and credibility.