Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

4 questions · 5 findings · 2 reviews · Orthodontics

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 4 · 80%Very low 0 · 0%Low 1 · 20%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Early treatment (two-phase) 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) with headgear showed no clear difference in PAR score compared with early treatment (two-phase) 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 orthodontic treatment (phase II)
MD -0.81 [-2.21, 0.58]
2 studies · 224 participants
GRADE not reported

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear

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) with headgear showed no clear difference in PAR score compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear; 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 (phase II)
MD -1.55 [-3.7, 0.6]
2 studies · 177 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

Fluoride varnish vs Non-fluoride (placebo) varnish

Number of participants with more severe DLs (score 3 or 4 versus 1 or 2) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

Professionally-applied fluoride varnish (7700 ppm F ammonium… may leads to lower number of participants with more severe DLs (score 3 or 4 versus 1… compared with non-fluoride (placebo) varnish (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Fluorides for preventing early tooth decay (demineralised lesions) during fixed brace treatment 2019 · Cochrane All outcomes
At debond; follow-up 1.7 years
RR 0.46 [0.22, 0.95]
1 study · 148 participants
Low