Final overjet · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in… led to lower final overjet compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Final overjet · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
Removable functional appliance may leads to higher final overjet compared with fixed functional appliance (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Final overjet · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
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).
2 findings from 1 review
Final overjet · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
Twin Block functional appliance (conventional) showed no clear difference in final overjet compared with modified Twin Block appliances; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Final overjet · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
Fixed functional appliance (FORSUS FRD) showed no clear difference in final overjet compared with intermaxillary elastics; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Final overjet · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear showed no clear difference in final overjet compared with early treatment (two-phase) with functional appliance; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Final overjet · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
Activator functional appliance led to higher final overjet compared with fixed functional appliance (FORSUS FRD EZ); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Final overjet · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
Late treatment (one-phase) with removable functional appliance may leads to lower final overjet compared with no treatment (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Final overjet · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
Twin Block functional appliance showed no clear difference in final overjet compared with other functional appliances (Bionator, Herbst, R-appliance, Dynamax,… (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Final overjet · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
FMA stepwise advancement (SWG) showed no clear difference in final overjet compared with FMA single step advancement (SSG); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Final overjet · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
Late treatment (one-phase) with fixed functional appliance may leads to lower final overjet compared with no treatment (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Occlusion (net change in overjet, short term) · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
Harvold Activator led to lower overjet change compared with frankel function regulator; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or less at the start of treatment) undergoing orthodontic treatment to distalise upper first…
Intraoral distalising appliance may leads to higher change in overjet (mm) compared with headgear (extraoral appliance) (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or less at the start of treatment) undergoing orthodontic treatment to distalise upper first…
1 finding from 1 review
SoF table 3. Assumed risk "Not estimated"; Corresponding risk "Not estimated"; Relative effect "Meta-analysis not appropriate". Quality: very low. Comment: "No pooled estimate due to different types of appliances used…
2 studies · 70 participants
Very low
Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or less at the start of treatment) undergoing orthodontic treatment to distalise upper first…
1 finding from 1 review
SoF table 1. Assumed risk "Not estimated"; Corresponding risk "Not estimated"; Relative effect "Meta-analysis not appropriate". Comment: "No pooled estimate due to different types of appliances (First Class and…
2 studies · 74 participants
Low
Residual overjet at the end of treatment · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Residual overjet at the end of treatment · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Occlusion (net change in overjet, short term) · Children with a non-nutritive sucking habit (digit or pacifier)
1 finding from 1 review
Table 1 (reduction in malocclusion), Villa 1997 (n=24), palatal crib vs no treatment: net change in overjet (mm) - no treatment 0.02; palatal crib -0.2; no statistically significant net change in overjet between…
1 study · 24 participants
GRADE not reported
Improvement of the overbite and overjet (plaster models) · Children with obstructive sleep apnoea (aged 15 years or younger)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review