Question · asked by 1 review
Lower lingual arch vs No active treatment (control): Size of the lower jaw (arch length)
- Population
- Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth
- Intervention
- Lower lingual arch
- Comparison
- No active treatment (control)
- Outcome
- Size of the lower jaw (arch length)
Lower lingual arch led to higher size of the lower jaw (mandibular arch length) at 1 year compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Lower lingual arch vs No active treatment (control) Size of the lower jaw (mandibular arch length) at 1 year · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth · 1 year Lower lingual arch led to higher size of the lower jaw (mandibular arch length) at 1 year compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported. Orthodontic treatment for crowded teeth in children (2021) · Cochrane All outcomes | MD 2.61 [1.83, 3.39] | 1 study · 30 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 crowded teeth in children 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2021-01 | 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.