Root resorption · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Time to next/working arch wire · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)
Thermoelastic copper NiTi (CuNiTi) arch wire showed no clear difference in time to next/working arch wire compared with conventional NiTi arch wire; 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
Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Bone-anchored intermaxillary traction (BAIMT) led to higher overjet compared with removable mandibular retractor (RMR); 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)
Orthodontic removable traction appliance (ORTA) led to higher wits appraisal compared with untreated control (no treatment); 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 (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
ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
1 finding from 1 review
Arun 1994 (n=60): ANB data not usable (no SDs); Mann-Whitney P<0.001 benefit for mandibular headgear. Effect ~0.5 degrees, probably not clinically significant.
1 study · 60 participants
GRADE not reported
ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Reverse Twin Block with lip pads and rapid maxillary expander (RME) led to higher ANB compared with untreated control (no treatment); 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)
Reverse Forsus led to higher ANB 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)
Non-surgical orthodontic treatment (any: facemask, chin cup, tandem… probably leads to higher overjet compared with no treatment (moderate 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 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)
Surgically-anchored orthodontic treatment (miniplates) may leads to higher overjet compared with untreated control (no treatment) (low certainty).
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
Wits appraisal · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) showed no clear difference in wits appraisal compared with facemask only; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Alignment rate · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)
Single-strand superelastic NiTi arch wire probably leads to lower alignment rate compared with coaxial superelastic NiTi arch wire (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) showed no clear difference in ANB compared with reverse chin cup; 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)
Tandem traction bow appliance led to higher ANB compared with untreated control (no treatment); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
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 with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) showed no clear difference in ANB compared with facemask with alternating rapid maxillary expansion and constriction… (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)
Chin cup (600 g force) showed no clear difference in wits appraisal compared with chin cup (300 g force); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review