Lower incisor inclination (lingual tipping and retrusion) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth
Self-ligating brackets showed no clear difference in lower incisors to mandible (inclination, degrees) compared with conventional brackets; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Amount of crowding (lower incisor crowding) at 10 weeks · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth
It is very uncertain whether self-ligating brackets changes amount of crowding (lower incisor crowding) at 10 weeks compared with conventional brackets (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Size of the lower jaw (arch length, change) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth
Extraction of third molars (wisdom teeth) led to higher size of the lower jaw (arch length, change) compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Lower incisors to mandible (position, mm) at 9 months · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth
Schwarz appliance led to higher lower incisors to mandible (position, mm) at 9 months compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Lower incisors to mandible (relationship of lower front teeth to the mandible) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth
Cervical pull headgear showed no clear difference in lower incisors to mandible at 2 years compared with minor interceptive procedures (control); 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)
Bone-anchored intermaxillary traction (BAIMT) led to higher overjet compared with removable mandibular retractor (RMR); 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)
Orthodontic removable traction appliance (ORTA) led to higher wits appraisal 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)
Facemask (with frame internal fixation) showed no clear difference in wits appraisal compared with frankel III functional 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)
1 finding from 1 review
Arun 1994 (n=60): ANB data not usable (no SDs); Mann-Whitney P<0.001 benefit for mandibular headgear. Effect ~0.5 degrees, probably not clinically significant.
1 study · 60 participants
GRADE not reported
ANB · 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 ANB compared with untreated control (no treatment); 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)
Reverse Forsus led to higher ANB compared with untreated control (no treatment); 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)
Non-surgical orthodontic treatment (any: facemask, chin cup, tandem… probably leads to higher overjet compared with no treatment (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Wits appraisal · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Facemask led to higher wits appraisal compared with untreated control (no treatment); 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)
Surgically-anchored orthodontic treatment (miniplates) may leads to higher overjet 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)
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