Question · asked by 1 review

Cervical pull headgear vs Minor interceptive procedures (control): Size of the jaws (maxillary and mandibular arch length)

Population
Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth
Intervention
Cervical pull headgear
Comparison
Minor interceptive procedures (control)
Outcome
Size of the jaws (maxillary and mandibular arch length)

Cervical pull headgear led to higher size of the jaws (maxillary and mandibular arch length) compared with minor interceptive procedures (control); GRADE not reported.

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Cervical pull headgear vs Minor interceptive procedures (control)
Size of the jaws (maxillary and mandibular arch length) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth · 2 to 8 years
Cervical pull headgear led to higher size of the jaws (maxillary and mandibular arch length) compared with minor interceptive procedures (control); GRADE not reported.
Orthodontic treatment for crowded teeth in children (2021) · Cochrane All outcomes
MD 1.98 [1.80, 2.16]1 study · 64 participantsGRADE not reported

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Orthodontic treatment for crowded teeth in children
2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
2021-01Not listedNot 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.