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
Composite (chemical or light cured) vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement
Outcome not reported · Patients with fixed orthodontic appliances attached to their teeth
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
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
Bracket (bond) failure · Patients with fixed orthodontic appliances attached to their teeth
1 finding from 1 review
Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets 2018 · Cochrane All outcomesTo end of appliance treatment
The one trial article for this adhesive comparison reported the results of paired t-tests comparing different sides of the mouth. No standard deviations were presented, so we were unable to reproduce the data. The…
1 study · 60 participants
GRADE not reported
Final ANB · 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 ANB compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Patient discomfort · Children (80% aged <= 16 years) with a Class II division 2 malocclusion (deep bite and retroclined upper front teeth)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
0 studies
No studies found
Incidence of incisal trauma · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
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)
Removable functional appliance may leads to higher final overjet compared with fixed functional appliance (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Incidence of incisal trauma · 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… showed no clear difference in incidence of incisal trauma compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
PAR score · 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 PAR score compared with early treatment (two-phase) with functional appliance; 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 late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear (low certainty).
2 findings from 1 review
Decalcification · Patients with fixed orthodontic appliances attached to their teeth
1 finding from 1 review
Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets 2018 · Cochrane All outcomesTo end of appliance treatment
However the paper reported that the compomer offered better protection against decalcification when compared by a sign test (P = 0.0075) (Millett 2000). No effect estimate or confidence interval was reported.
1 study · 45 participants
GRADE not reported
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
Incidence of incisal trauma · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Final ANB · 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 ANB compared with intermaxillary elastics; 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
Incidence of incisal trauma · 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 incidence of incisal trauma compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
PAR score · 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 PAR score compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
MD -10.52 [-12.32, -8.71]
2 studies · 349 participants
GRADE not reported
MD 0.62 [-0.66, 1.91]
3 studies · 360 participants
GRADE not reported
Incidence of incisal trauma · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review