Overjet · 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 overjet compared with conventional Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Root resorption · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Overjet · 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 overjet compared with mini maxillary protractor; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Pain · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Pain: not reported
0 studies
No studies found
Time to alignment · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
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
Overjet · 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 overjet compared with surgically-anchored appliance (miniscrews or miniplates) (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Root resorption · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
A-Nasion perpendicular (A-NPerp) · 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 A-Nasion perpendicular (A-NPerp) compared with facemask with alternating rapid maxillary expansion and constriction…; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
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
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
Root resorption · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)
It is very uncertain whether superelastic NiTi arch wire changes root resorption (reduction in root length) compared with thermoelastic NiTi arch wire (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Perceived need for surgery in adulthood · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Orthodontic removable traction appliance (ORTA) led to higher overjet compared with untreated control (no treatment); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Time to next/working arch wire · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)
Superelastic NiTi arch wire showed no clear difference in time to next/working arch wire compared with thermoelastic NiTi arch wire; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Time to alignment · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Wits appraisal · 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… led to higher wits appraisal compared with no treatment; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Wits appraisal · 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 wits appraisal compared with pushing Splints; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Pain · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)
1 finding from 1 review
Different sizes of NiTi wires (Alhaija 2021; Erdinc 2004); not pooled due to clinical heterogeneity; little or no difference at day 1. Erdinc 0.014 vs 0.016 inch higher pain at day 4 MD 5.00 (0.19 to 9.81) and day 6 MD…
2 studies · 149 participants
Low