Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear: Final overjet
- Population
- Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
- Intervention
- Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear
- Comparison
- Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear
- Outcome
- Final overjet
Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear showed no clear difference in final overjet compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear Final overjet · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) · End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear showed no clear difference in final overjet compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear (low certainty). Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents (2018) · Cochrane All outcomes | MD -0.22 [-0.56, 0.12] | 2 studies · 238 participants | Low |
Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear Final overjet · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) · End of phase I (growth modification phase) Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear led to lower final overjet compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear; GRADE not reported. Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents (2018) · Cochrane All outcomes | MD -1.07 [-1.63, -0.51] | 2 studies · 278 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 prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2017-09 | Not listed | Not assessed |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Early treatment (two-phase) with functional appliance · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front… · 1 review
- Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear · Children and/or adolescents (age < 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct… · 0 reviews
- Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear · Children or adolescents (age < 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct… · 0 reviews
- Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Early treatment (two-phase) with functional appliance · Children and/or adolescents (age < 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct… · 0 reviews
- Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Early treatment (two-phase) with functional appliance · Children or adolescents (age < 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct… · 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.