Fixed bonded Hyrax appliance followed by U-bow activator therapy vs no treatment: Canine expansion
- Population
- Children and adults with a posterior crossbite, without a Class III skeletal relationship, cleft lip or palate (or both), or other syndrome associated with craniofacial anomalies (included studies were children and adolescents aged 5 to 17 years)
- Intervention
- Fixed bonded Hyrax appliance followed by U-bow activator therapy
- Comparison
- no treatment
- Outcome
- Canine expansion
Fixed bonded Hyrax appliance followed by U-bow activator therapy showed no clear difference in canine expansion compared with no treatment; GRADE not reported.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Fixed bonded Hyrax appliance followed by U-bow activator therapy vs No treatment Canine expansion · Children and adults with a posterior crossbite, without a Class III skeletal relationship, cleft lip or palate (or… · 12 months after start of treatment Fixed bonded Hyrax appliance followed by U-bow activator therapy showed no clear difference in canine expansion compared with no treatment; GRADE not reported. Orthodontic treatment for posterior crossbites (2021) · Cochrane All outcomes | U-bow activator 3.6 mm vs untreated 1 mm; P<0.001 (no SD reported); significant in favour of treatment | 1 study · 66 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 posterior crossbites 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2021-04 | Not listed | Not assessed |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Fixed bonded Hyrax appliance followed by U-bow activator therapy vs no treatment · Children and adults with a posterior crossbite without a Class III skeletal… · 0 reviews
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.