evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

5 questions · 6 findings · 1 reviews · Orthodontics

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 4 · 66.7%Very low 0 · 0%Low 1 · 16.7%Moderate 1 · 16.7%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

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

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