Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

28 questions · 30 findings · 1 reviews · Orthodontics

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 22 · 73.3%Very low 1 · 3.3%Low 5 · 16.7%Moderate 2 · 6.7%High 0 · 0%

Mandibular headgear vs no intervention

ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
1 finding from 1 review

Reverse Twin Block with lip pads and rapid maxillary expander (RME) vs no intervention

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

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Reverse chin cup

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

Tandem traction bow appliance vs no intervention

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

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Facemask with alternating rapid maxillary expansion and constriction (Alt-RAMEC)

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

Facemask (RME) or modified facemask vs Other non-surgical orthodontic treatments (mini maxillary protractor, Pushing Splints, modified tandem, Reverse Forsus, reverse Twin Block, reverse chin cup, tongue appliance, Frankel III)

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

It is very uncertain whether facemask (RME) or modified facemask changes ANB compared with other non-surgical orthodontic treatments (mini maxillary… (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Tongue appliance

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 tongue appliance; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Modified tandem appliance

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 modified tandem appliance; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask vs no intervention

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

Facemask probably leads to higher ANB compared with untreated control (no treatment) (moderate certainty).

3 findings from 1 review

Facemask after Alt-RAMEC vs Facemask started simultaneously with Alt-RAMEC

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

Facemask after Alt-RAMEC showed no clear difference in ANB compared with facemask started simultaneously with Alt-RAMEC; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgically-anchored orthodontic treatment (miniplates) vs no intervention

ANB · 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 ANB compared with untreated control (no treatment) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical miniplates with facemask vs Surgical miniplates with Class III elastics

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

Surgical miniplates with facemask showed no clear difference in ANB compared with surgical miniplates with Class III elastics; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Reverse Twin Block with lip pads and rapid maxillary expander (RME)

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 reverse Twin Block with lip pads and rapid maxillary expander (RME); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Non-surgical orthodontic treatment (any: facemask, chin cup, tandem traction bow, mandibular headgear, ORTA, reverse Twin Block, Reverse Forsus) vs no treatment

ANB · 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 ANB compared with no treatment (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Reverse Forsus

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 higher ANB compared with reverse Forsus; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Facemask only

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 only (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic removable traction appliance (ORTA) vs no intervention

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

Orthodontic removable traction appliance (ORTA) led to higher ANB compared with untreated control (no treatment); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review