Question · asked by 1 review
Nanda facemask vs Conventional facemask: ANB
- Population
- Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
- Intervention
- Nanda facemask
- Comparison
- Conventional facemask
- Outcome
- ANB
Nanda facemask led to higher ANB compared with conventional facemask; GRADE not reported.
What each review found
Current versions onlyNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 2 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Nanda facemask vs Conventional facemask ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) · End of treatment Nanda facemask led to higher ANB compared with conventional facemask; GRADE not reported. Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children (2024) · Cochrane All outcomes | MD 1.29 [0.16, 2.42] | 1 study · 20 participants | GRADE not reported |
Nanda facemask vs Conventional facemask ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) · End of treatment Nanda facemask led to higher ANB compared with conventional facemask; GRADE not reported. Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children (2013) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD003451.PUB2, superseded | MD 1.29 [0.16, 2.42] | 1 study · 20 participants | GRADE not reported |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 lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children 2024 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2023-01 | 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.