Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

3 questions · 4 findings · 1 reviews

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 3 · 75%Very low 0 · 0%Low 1 · 25%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Early treatment (two-phase) with functional appliance

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 early treatment (two-phase) with functional appliance; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear

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

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear

Incidence of new 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 may leads to lower incidence of new incisal trauma compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review