Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the reporting quality of systematic review (SR) abstracts in leading orthodontic journals using the PRISMA abstract criteria. Additionally, the study examined characteristics associated with improved abstract reporting quality. Materials and methods: A retrospective observational study design was employed. Systematic reviews published between January 2018 and December 2022 in four prominent orthodontic journals were identified through electronic and manual searches. Inclusion criteria focused on articles with “SR” or “meta-analysis” keywords in the title or abstract. Narrative and historical reviews, scoping reviews, and case reports with extensive literature reviews were not considered as part of the exclusion criteria. The screening was carried out in duplicate and independently by the two authors. Results: The European Journal of Orthodontics had the highest number of included articles, while the Journal of Orthodontics had the lowest. The majority of SRs had authors affiliated with academic institutions. Compliance scores varied across journals and regions, with Asia scoring the highest. Certain checklist items, such as identifying the report as an SR, stating objectives, describing included studies, providing interpretation, and registration, were adequately reported in over 93% of the reviews. However, the reporting of risk of bias and synthesis of results showed room for improvement. Conclusion: The study revealed a significant improvement in the overall Preferred Reporting Items for SRs and Meta-Analyses for Abstracts (PRISMA-A) score of included SRs, primarily due to enhanced reporting of specific checklist items. However, there remains considerable scope for further improvement in abstract reporting, highlighting the importance of striving to meet higher standards in SR abstracts. Clinical significance: The study showed a notable increase in the PRISMA-A score. However, there is still a need for continued efforts to meet higher reporting standards in SR abstracts.