Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

6 questions · 10 findings · 1 reviews · Orthodontics

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 7 · 70%Very low 0 · 0%Low 1 · 10%Moderate 2 · 20%High 0 · 0%

Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in adolescence) with functional appliance vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance

Self concept · 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 self concept compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of orthodontic treatment (phase II)
MD -0.83 [-3.97, 2.31]
1 study · 132 participants
GRADE not reported
Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of phase I (growth modification phase)
MD -3.63 [-7.66, 0.4]
1 study · 135 participants
GRADE not reported

Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in adolescence) with functional appliance vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance

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: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in… probably leads to lower incidence of new incisal trauma compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of orthodontic treatment (phase II)
OR 0.56 [0.33, 0.95]
3 studies · 332 participants
Moderate

Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in adolescence) with functional appliance vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance

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

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of phase I (growth modification phase)
MD -4.17 [-4.61, -3.73]
3 studies · 432 participants
GRADE not reported
Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of orthodontic treatment (phase II)
MD 0.21 [-0.1, 0.51]
3 studies · 343 participants
Low

Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in adolescence) with functional appliance vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance

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

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of phase I (growth modification phase)
MD -0.89 [-1.38, -0.4]
3 studies · 419 participants
GRADE not reported
Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of orthodontic treatment (phase II)
MD -0.02 [-0.47, 0.43]
3 studies · 347 participants
Moderate

Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in adolescence) with functional appliance vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) 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: 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

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of phase I (growth modification phase)
OR 0.72 [0.35, 1.49]
2 studies · 281 participants
GRADE not reported

Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in adolescence) with functional appliance vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance

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

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of phase I (growth modification phase)
MD -10.52 [-12.32, -8.71]
2 studies · 349 participants
GRADE not reported
Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of orthodontic treatment (phase II)
MD 0.62 [-0.66, 1.91]
3 studies · 360 participants
GRADE not reported