Removable functional appliance vs Fixed functional appliance: Incidence of incisal trauma
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Removable functional appliance vs Fixed functional appliance Incidence of incisal trauma · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II… · End of orthodontic treatment The review found no eligible studies for this question. Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents (2018) · Cochrane All outcomes | Incidence of Incisal trauma: Not measured | Not reported | No studies found |
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 | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
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.