Question · asked by 1 review
Hypnosis vs No hypnosis (no hypnotic intervention): Orthodontic appliance (headgear) wearing time and patient co-operation
- Population
- Children (mean age approximately 10 years) with skeletal Class II division 1 malocclusion undergoing orthodontic treatment with cervical headgear (Trakyali 2008)
- Intervention
- Hypnosis
- Comparison
- No hypnosis (no hypnotic intervention)
- Outcome
- Orthodontic appliance (headgear) wearing time and patient co-operation
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Hypnosis vs No hypnosis (no hypnotic intervention) Orthodontic appliance (headgear) wearing time and patient co-operation · Children (mean age approximately 10 years) with skeletal Class II division 1 malocclusion undergoing orthodontic… · 6 months Hypnosis for children undergoing dental treatment (2010) · Cochrane All outcomes | A statistically significant decrease (P < 0.05) in headgear wear was observed in the control (verbal motivation) group from the first to the sixth month; the difference in the hypnosis group was not significant,… | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hypnosis for children undergoing dental treatment 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2010-06 | 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.