Question · asked by 1 review
Orthodontic appliances (palatal crib) vs no treatment: Occlusion (change in maxillary arch length, short term)
- Population
- Children with a non-nutritive sucking habit (digit or pacifier)
- Intervention
- Orthodontic appliances (palatal crib)
- Comparison
- no treatment
- Outcome
- Occlusion (change in maxillary arch length, short term)
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Orthodontic appliances (palatal crib) vs No treatment Occlusion (change in maxillary arch length, short term) · Children with a non-nutritive sucking habit (digit or pacifier) · Short term (3 months) Interventions for the cessation of non‐nutritive sucking habits in children (2015) · Cochrane All outcomes | Table 1 (reduction in malocclusion), Villa 1997 (n=24), palatal crib vs no treatment: change in maxillary arch length (mm) - no treatment 0.01 (SD 0.33); palatal crib -1.4 (SD 1.4); reported as statistically… | 1 study · 24 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interventions for the cessation of non‐nutritive sucking habits in children 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2014-10 | Not listed | Not assessed |
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.