Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

4,410 questions · 8,901 findings · 1,091 reviews

No studies found 1,687 · 19%GRADE not reported 1,469 · 16.5%Very low 1,969 · 22.1%Low 2,060 · 23.1%Moderate 1,302 · 14.6%High 414 · 4.7%

Ranked among the 5,000 newest matching findings; add words or filters to narrow the search.

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)

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

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

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

Orthodontic removable traction appliance (ORTA) vs no intervention

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

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

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

Mandibular headgear vs no intervention

ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
1 finding from 1 review

Reverse Twin Block with lip pads and rapid maxillary expander (RME) vs no intervention

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

Non-surgical orthodontic treatment (any: facemask, chin cup, tandem traction bow, mandibular headgear, ORTA, reverse Twin Block, Reverse Forsus) vs no treatment

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

Surgically-anchored orthodontic treatment (miniplates) vs no intervention

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

Facemask vs no intervention

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