This systematic review aims to compare conventional corticotomy with minimally-invasive protocols (MIP). Electronic database, in MEDLINE and CENTRAL, and hand search were performed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized split-mouth designed studies (RSMSs) were selected for inclusion, reporting either the use of a corticotomy procedure or a MIP. The main outcomes were the rate/velocity of tooth movement, type of tooth movement observed, loss of anchorage, periodontal indexes, inflammatory mediators, root resorption, patient's pain experience, impact on the quality of life, and satisfaction. Twenty-two papers were included for the qualitative synthesis, from which ten RCTs and twelve RSMSs. Eighteen of them compared a conventional orthodontic treatment without and with a surgical adjunctive procedure, two with conventional corticotomy and sixteen with a MIP (piezocision, micro-osteoperforations (MOPs) or interseptal bone reduction). Four trials compared a surgical procedure to another one. Corticotomy, piezocision and MOPs are likely to accelerate tooth movement, in decreasing order. Pain is reported to be higher in experimental groups only on the first day after surgery. Patient satisfaction is high after surgical procedures. Loss of anchorage, periodontal indexes, or root resorption occurrence show no differences between groups. Corticotomy stands as the gold-standard procedure for surgically-assisted orthodontics, but piezocision appears as a good compromise solution as well as MOPs, in a lesser extent. MIP are known to accelerate tooth movement only during the first three months.