Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

3 questions · 3 findings · 1 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 1 · 33.3%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 2 · 66.7%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Late treatment (one-phase) with fixed functional appliance vs no treatment

Final ANB · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Late treatment (one-phase) with fixed functional appliance showed no clear difference in final ANB compared with no treatment (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of orthodontic treatment
MD -0.53 [-1.27, 0.22]
3 studies · 89 participants
Low

Late treatment (one-phase) with fixed functional appliance vs no treatment

Incidence of incisal trauma · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of orthodontic treatment
Incidence of incisal trauma: Not measured
Studies not reported
No studies found

Late treatment (one-phase) with fixed functional appliance vs no treatment

Final overjet · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Late treatment (one-phase) with fixed functional appliance may leads to lower final overjet compared with no treatment (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of orthodontic treatment
MD -5.46 [-6.63, -4.28]
2 studies · 61 participants
Low