Incidence of incisal trauma · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear showed no clear difference in incidence of incisal trauma compared with early treatment (two-phase) with functional appliance; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Final ANB · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear showed no clear difference in final ANB compared with early treatment (two-phase) with functional appliance; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
PAR score · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear showed no clear difference in PAR score compared with early treatment (two-phase) with functional appliance; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Final overjet · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear showed no clear difference in final overjet compared with early treatment (two-phase) with functional appliance; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Success of the anchorage device · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage
Early loading of mini-screw implant showed no clear difference in success of the anchorage device compared with delayed loading of mini-screw implant; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
PAR score · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear showed no clear difference in PAR score compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Incidence of new incisal trauma · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear may leads to lower incidence of new incisal trauma compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Final overjet · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear showed no clear difference in final overjet compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear (low certainty).
2 findings from 1 review
Incidence of incisal trauma · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear showed no clear difference in incidence of incisal trauma compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Final ANB · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear led to lower final ANB compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Self concept · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in… showed no clear difference in self concept compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Incidence of new incisal trauma · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in… probably leads to lower incidence of new incisal trauma compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Final overjet · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in… led to lower final overjet compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Final ANB · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in… led to lower final ANB compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Incidence of incisal trauma · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in… showed no clear difference in incidence of incisal trauma compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
PAR score · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in… led to lower PAR score compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
MD -10.52 [-12.32, -8.71]
2 studies · 349 participants
GRADE not reported
MD 0.62 [-0.66, 1.91]
3 studies · 360 participants
GRADE not reported
Number of participants with more severe DLs (severity of DLs) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Number of participants with more severe DLs (severity of DLs) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Number of participants with more severe DLs (severity of DLs) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Adverse effects · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review