Wits appraisal · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Facemask led to higher wits appraisal compared with untreated control (no treatment); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Facemask led to higher overjet compared with untreated control (no treatment); GRADE not reported.
3 findings from 1 review
MD 5.04 [4.29, 5.80]
2 studies · 92 participants
GRADE not reported
MD 1.30 [-0.16, 2.76]
1 study · 65 participants
Low
MD 2.50 [1.21, 3.79]
1 study · 63 participants
Moderate
Self-esteem (Piers-Harris self-concept scale) · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Facemask showed no clear difference in self-esteem (Piers-Harris self-concept scale) compared with untreated control (no treatment); GRADE not reported.
3 findings from 1 review
MD 0.60 [-2.57, 3.77]
1 study · 63 participants
GRADE not reported
MD 1.50 [-0.96, 3.96]
1 study · 69 participants
GRADE not reported
MD -0.30 [-4.17, 3.57]
1 study · 65 participants
GRADE not reported
ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Facemask probably leads to higher ANB compared with untreated control (no treatment) (moderate certainty).
3 findings from 1 review
MD 1.40 [0.43, 2.37]
1 study · 63 participants
Moderate
MD 0.70 [-0.74, 2.14]
1 study · 65 participants
Low
MD 3.60 [2.68, 4.52]
5 studies · 197 participants
GRADE not reported
Self-esteem (Oral Aesthetic Subjective Impact Score, OASIS) · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Facemask led to lower self-esteem (Oral Aesthetic Subjective Impact Score, OASIS) compared with untreated control (no treatment); GRADE not reported.
3 findings from 1 review
MD -4.00 [-7.40, -0.60]
1 study · 69 participants
GRADE not reported
MD -2.20 [-7.31, 2.91]
1 study · 65 participants
GRADE not reported
MD -3.40 [-7.99, 1.19]
1 study · 63 participants
GRADE not reported
Perceived need for surgery in adulthood · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Facemask may leads to higher perceived need for surgery in adulthood compared with untreated control (no treatment) (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Nanda facemask led to higher ANB compared with conventional facemask; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Facemask after Alt-RAMEC showed no clear difference in ANB compared with facemask started simultaneously with Alt-RAMEC; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Wits appraisal · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Facemask after Alt-RAMEC showed no clear difference in wits appraisal compared with facemask started simultaneously with Alt-RAMEC; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Facemask after Alt-RAMEC showed no clear difference in overjet compared with facemask started simultaneously with Alt-RAMEC; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Surgical miniplates with facemask showed no clear difference in overjet compared with surgical miniplates with Class III elastics; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Surgical miniplates with facemask showed no clear difference in ANB compared with surgical miniplates with Class III elastics; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Perceived need for surgery in adulthood · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
It is very uncertain whether facemask (RME) or modified facemask changes ANB compared with other non-surgical orthodontic treatments (mini maxillary… (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
It is very uncertain whether facemask (RME) or modified facemask changes overjet compared with surgically-anchored appliance (miniscrews or miniplates) (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Wits appraisal · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Facemask (RME) or modified facemask showed no clear difference in wits appraisal compared with surgically-anchored appliance (miniscrews or miniplates); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Perceived need for surgery in adulthood · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Facemask (RME) or modified facemask showed no clear difference in ANB compared with surgically-anchored appliance (miniscrews or miniplates) (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
It is very uncertain whether facemask (RME) or modified facemask changes overjet compared with other non-surgical orthodontic treatments (mini maxillary… (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Wits appraisal · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Facemask (with frame internal fixation) showed no clear difference in wits appraisal compared with frankel III functional appliance; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review