Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

185 questions · 193 findings · 7 reviews · Orthodontics

No studies found 44 · 22.8%GRADE not reported 99 · 51.3%Very low 26 · 13.5%Low 18 · 9.3%Moderate 6 · 3.1%High 0 · 0%

Tandem traction bow appliance vs no intervention

Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Tandem traction bow appliance led to higher overjet compared with untreated control (no treatment); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Reverse Forsus

ANB · 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 compared with reverse Forsus; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Facemask only

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 only (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Modified tandem appliance

Overjet · 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 overjet compared with modified tandem appliance; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask vs no intervention

Adverse effects (temporomandibular joint signs and symptoms) · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
1 finding from 1 review

Facemask after Alt-RAMEC vs Facemask started simultaneously with Alt-RAMEC

Overjet · 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 overjet compared with facemask started simultaneously with Alt-RAMEC; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic removable traction appliance (ORTA) vs no intervention

ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Orthodontic removable traction appliance (ORTA) led to higher ANB compared with untreated control (no treatment); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Mini maxillary protractor

ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) led to lower ANB compared with mini maxillary protractor; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Reverse Twin Block with lip pads and rapid maxillary expander (RME)

Wits appraisal · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) led to lower wits appraisal compared with reverse Twin Block with lip pads and rapid maxillary expander (RME); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask (RME) or modified facemask vs Surgically-anchored appliance (miniscrews or miniplates)

ANB · 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 ANB compared with surgically-anchored appliance (miniscrews or miniplates) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Hybrid Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics vs Conventional Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics

Wits appraisal · 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 wits appraisal compared with conventional Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask (with frame internal fixation) vs Frankel III functional appliance

ANB · 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 ANB compared with frankel III functional appliance; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask (RME) or modified facemask vs Other non-surgical orthodontic treatments (mini maxillary protractor, Pushing Splints, modified tandem, Reverse Forsus, reverse Twin Block, reverse chin cup, tongue appliance, Frankel III)

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 other non-surgical orthodontic treatments (mini maxillary… (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Bone-anchored intermaxillary traction (BAIMT) vs Removable mandibular retractor (RMR)

ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Bone-anchored intermaxillary traction (BAIMT) led to higher ANB compared with removable mandibular retractor (RMR); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Hybrid Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics vs Conventional Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics

ANB · 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 ANB compared with conventional Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Chin cup (600 g force) vs Chin cup (300 g force)

ANB · 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 ANB compared with chin cup (300 g force); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask vs no intervention

Perceived need for surgery in adulthood · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Facemask may leads to higher perceived need for surgery in adulthood compared with untreated control (no treatment) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review