Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

40 questions · 42 findings · 4 reviews

No studies found 3 · 7.1%GRADE not reported 27 · 64.3%Very low 1 · 2.4%Low 9 · 21.4%Moderate 2 · 4.8%High 0 · 0%

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Mini maxillary protractor

ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) led to lower ANB compared with mini maxillary protractor; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask (RME) or modified facemask vs Surgically-anchored appliance (miniscrews or miniplates)

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

Facemask (with frame internal fixation) vs Frankel III functional appliance

ANB · 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 ANB compared with frankel III functional appliance; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Bone-anchored intermaxillary traction (BAIMT) vs Removable mandibular retractor (RMR)

ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Bone-anchored intermaxillary traction (BAIMT) led to higher ANB compared with removable mandibular retractor (RMR); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Hybrid Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics vs Conventional Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics

ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Hybrid Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics showed no clear difference in ANB compared with conventional Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Chin cup (600 g force) vs Chin cup (300 g force)

ANB · 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 ANB compared with chin cup (300 g force); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed functional appliance (FORSUS FRD) vs Fixed functional appliance with mini-implants (FMI)

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 fixed functional appliance with mini-implants (FMI); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Twin Block functional appliance vs Other functional appliances (Bionator, Herbst, R-appliance, Dynamax, Bite-Jumping)

Final ANB · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Twin Block functional appliance may leads to lower final ANB compared with other functional appliances (Bionator, Herbst, R-appliance, Dynamax,… (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

R-appliance vs Anterior inclined bite plate (AIBP)

Final ANB · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

R-appliance showed no clear difference in final ANB compared with anterior inclined bite plate (AIBP); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Late treatment (one-phase) with removable functional appliance vs no treatment

Final ANB · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Late treatment (one-phase) with removable functional appliance may leads to lower final ANB compared with no treatment (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Late treatment (one-phase) with fixed functional appliance vs no treatment

Final ANB · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Late treatment (one-phase) with fixed functional appliance showed no clear difference in final ANB compared with no treatment (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Activator functional appliance vs Fixed functional appliance (FORSUS FRD EZ)

Final ANB · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Activator functional appliance led to lower final ANB compared with fixed functional appliance (FORSUS FRD EZ); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Removable functional appliance vs Fixed functional appliance

Final ANB · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Removable functional appliance may leads to lower final ANB compared with fixed functional appliance (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed functional appliance (FORSUS FRD) vs Intermaxillary elastics

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

FMA stepwise advancement (SWG) vs FMA single step advancement (SSG)

Final ANB · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

FMA stepwise advancement (SWG) led to lower final ANB compared with FMA single step advancement (SSG); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Pushing Splints

ANB (ANPog) · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) led to higher ANB (ANPog) compared with pushing Splints; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Resorbable (bioresorbable) plates or screws for fixation vs Titanium plates or screws for fixation

Status of occlusion (e.g. ANB, Angle's classification, Wits analysis) · Adults over 18 years of age with fractures of the facial skeleton including the mandible, maxilla, zygoma (malar); studies on fractures of…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Resorbable versus titanium plates for facial fractures 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Up to 3 years postoperatively
    Planned secondary outcome not assessed: none of the retrieved studies met the inclusion criteria, so no data were available for analysis. Verbatim (Effects of interventions): "Although 53 studies were retrieved in our…
    0 studies
    No studies found

Orthodontic treatment without extraction of permanent teeth vs No treatment (or delayed treatment)

Cephalometric measurements (ANB change and front teeth inclination changes) · 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

Orthodontic treatment without extraction of permanent teeth vs Orthodontic treatment involving extraction of permanent teeth

Cephalometric measurements (ANB change and front teeth inclination changes) · 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