Fixed functional appliance (FORSUS FRD) vs Fixed functional appliance with mini-implants (FMI): Final ANB
- Population
- Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
- Intervention
- Fixed functional appliance (FORSUS FRD)
- Comparison
- Fixed functional appliance with mini-implants (FMI)
- Outcome
- Final ANB
Fixed functional appliance (FORSUS FRD) showed no clear difference in final ANB compared with fixed functional appliance with mini-implants (FMI); GRADE not reported.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Fixed functional appliance (FORSUS FRD) vs Fixed functional appliance with mini-implants (FMI) Final ANB · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II… · End of orthodontic treatment Fixed functional appliance (FORSUS FRD) showed no clear difference in final ANB compared with fixed functional appliance with mini-implants (FMI); GRADE not reported. Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents (2018) · Cochrane All outcomes | MD 0.22 [-0.86, 1.3] | 2 studies · 60 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2017-09 | Not listed | Not assessed |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Fixed functional appliance (FORSUS FRD) vs Intermaxillary elastics · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent… · 1 review
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.