Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

9 questions · 9 findings · 1 reviews · All outcomes

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 5 · 55.6%Very low 0 · 0%Low 4 · 44.4%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

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

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of orthodontic treatment
MD 0.22 [-0.86, 1.3]
2 studies · 60 participants
GRADE not reported

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

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of orthodontic treatment
MD -0.56 [-0.96, -0.16]
6 studies · 320 participants
Low

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

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of orthodontic treatment
MD -0.3 [-0.99, 0.39]
1 study · 50 participants
GRADE not reported

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

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of orthodontic treatment
MD -2.37 [-3.01, -1.74]
2 studies · 99 participants
Low

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

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of orthodontic treatment
MD -0.53 [-1.27, 0.22]
3 studies · 89 participants
Low

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

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of orthodontic treatment
MD -1.74 [-3.28, -0.2]
1 study · 24 participants
GRADE not reported

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

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of orthodontic treatment
MD -1.04 [-1.6, -0.49]
3 studies · 185 participants
Low

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

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of orthodontic treatment
MD -0.9 [-1.96, 0.16]
1 study · 28 participants
GRADE not reported

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

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of orthodontic treatment
MD -0.69 [-1.19, -0.19]
1 study · 34 participants
GRADE not reported