Alignment rate · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)
It is very uncertain whether thermoelastic copper NiTi (CuNiTi) arch wire changes alignment rate compared with conventional NiTi arch wire (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
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
MD 1.40 [0.43, 2.37]
1 study · 63 participants
Moderate
MD 0.70 [-0.74, 2.14]
1 study · 65 participants
Low
MD 3.60 [2.68, 4.52]
5 studies · 197 participants
GRADE not reported
Adverse effects · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
1 finding from 1 review
Galeotti 2021: occasional skin irritation on the chin and three appliance breakages (one facemask, two Pushing Splints).
1 study · 42 participants
GRADE not reported
Wits appraisal · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Facemask (RME) or modified facemask showed no clear difference in wits appraisal compared with surgically-anchored appliance (miniscrews or miniplates); GRADE not reported.
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 pushing Splints; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Self-esteem (Oral Aesthetic Subjective Impact Score, OASIS) · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Facemask led to lower self-esteem (Oral Aesthetic Subjective Impact Score, OASIS) compared with untreated control (no treatment); GRADE not reported.
3 findings from 1 review
MD -4.00 [-7.40, -0.60]
1 study · 69 participants
GRADE not reported
MD -2.20 [-7.31, 2.91]
1 study · 65 participants
GRADE not reported
MD -3.40 [-7.99, 1.19]
1 study · 63 participants
GRADE not reported
Pain day 1 · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)
Superelastic NiTi arch wire showed no clear difference in pain day 1 compared with conventional (stabilised) NiTi arch wire (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Time to alignment · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)
Superelastic NiTi arch wire may leads to higher time to alignment compared with thermoelastic NiTi arch wire (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Chin cup led to higher ANB compared with untreated control (no treatment); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Adverse effects / patient-reported (pain, self-confidence) · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
1 finding from 1 review
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
Wits appraisal · 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 wits appraisal compared with facemask started simultaneously with Alt-RAMEC; 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)
Surgically-anchored orthodontic treatment (miniplates) may leads to higher ANB compared with untreated control (no treatment) (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Overjet · 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 overjet compared with surgical miniplates with Class III elastics; 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)
Reverse Twin Block with lip pads and rapid maxillary expander (RME) led to higher wits appraisal 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)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
ANB (ANPog) · 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 (ANPog) compared with pushing Splints; 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 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)
1 finding from 1 review
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