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
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 reverse Twin Block with lip pads and rapid maxillary expander (RME); 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
ANB · 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 ANB compared with no treatment (moderate certainty).
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 reverse Forsus; 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) may leads to higher overjet compared with facemask only (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Wits appraisal · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Chin cup led to higher wits appraisal 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)
Nanda facemask led to higher ANB compared with conventional facemask; 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) 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
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