Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Facemask led to higher overjet compared with untreated control (no treatment); GRADE not reported.
3 findings from 1 review
MD 5.04 [4.29, 5.80]
2 studies · 92 participants
GRADE not reported
MD 1.30 [-0.16, 2.76]
1 study · 65 participants
Low
MD 2.50 [1.21, 3.79]
1 study · 63 participants
Moderate
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 only; 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 reverse chin cup; 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)
Tandem traction bow appliance led to higher ANB compared with untreated control (no treatment); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Self-esteem (Piers-Harris self-concept scale) · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Facemask showed no clear difference in self-esteem (Piers-Harris self-concept scale) compared with untreated control (no treatment); GRADE not reported.
3 findings from 1 review
MD 0.60 [-2.57, 3.77]
1 study · 63 participants
GRADE not reported
MD 1.50 [-0.96, 3.96]
1 study · 69 participants
GRADE not reported
MD -0.30 [-4.17, 3.57]
1 study · 65 participants
GRADE not reported
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 facemask with alternating rapid maxillary expansion and constriction… (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Wits appraisal · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Chin cup (600 g force) showed no clear difference in wits appraisal compared with chin cup (300 g force); 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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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