Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

6 questions · 6 findings · 1 reviews · Orthodontics

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 2 · 33.3%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 4 · 66.7%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Removable functional appliance vs Fixed functional appliance

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

Removable functional appliance may leads to lower final ANB compared with fixed functional appliance (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 -1.04 [-1.6, -0.49]
3 studies · 185 participants
Low

Removable functional appliance vs Fixed functional appliance

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

Removable functional appliance may leads to higher final overjet compared with fixed functional appliance (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 0.74 [0.15, 1.33]
2 studies · 154 participants
Low

Removable functional appliance vs Fixed functional appliance

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 removable 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 removable functional appliance may leads to lower 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 -2.37 [-3.01, -1.74]
2 studies · 99 participants
Low

Late treatment (one-phase) with removable 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 removable 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 removable 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 -4.62 [-5.33, -3.92]
3 studies · 122 participants
Low