Cochrane · intervention · CD003451
Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children
Owens, D, Watkinson, S, Harrison, JE, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2024 · Cochrane Library
Full textEvery question was extracted from the full review (methods and results), not only its Summary of Findings table.
Questions
78
current version
GRADE rated
16
No studies
4
Included studies
29
as reported
No studies 4 · 5.1%Ungraded 58 · 74.4%Very low 3 · 3.8%Low 9 · 11.5%Moderate 4 · 5.1%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion). Excluded: cleft lip or palate or other craniofacial deformities/syndromes; studies with less than 80% participants aged 16 years or younger; children who previously received surgical treatment. | Children aged five to 13 years at start of treatment, from different ethnic backgrounds (mostly not stated); 20 to 73 children per study (average 38); approximately equal boys and girls |
| Intervention | Non-surgical orthodontic interventions (removable, fixed and/or functional; e.g. facemask, chin cup, mandibular headgear, reverse Twin Block); surgically-anchored orthodontic interventions (e.g. miniscrews, miniplates, bone-anchored intermaxillary traction); any other intra- or extra-oral intervention | Facemask (n=179); Chin cup (n=90); Tandem traction bow appliance (n=30); Mandibular headgear (n=60); Orthodontic removable traction appliance (n=40); Reverse Twin Block with lip pads and RME (n=26); Reverse Forsus (n=22); Mini maxillary protractor (n=32); Pushing Splints (n=42); Modified tandem appliance (n=32); Reverse chin cup (n=42); Tongue plate appliance (n=47); Frankel III functional appliance (n=34); Miniscrews (n=43); Surgical miniplates (n=30); Bone-anchored intermaxillary traction (n=38) |
| Comparison | No treatment / delayed treatment / another active intervention | Untreated control (n=431) |
| Outcomes | Primary: prominence of the lower front teeth (overjet, mm or index of malocclusion). Secondary: relationship between upper and lower jaw (ANB angle or Wits appraisal); psychosocial measures; patient satisfaction; surgery in adulthood; adverse effects (including jaw joint problems, health of the gums, damage to the teeth). | Overjet (n=184); ANB (n=345); Wits appraisal (n=175); Piers-Harris children's self-concept scale (n=69); Oral Aesthetic Subjective Impact Score (n=69); Perceived need for surgery in adulthood (n=65); Temporomandibular joint signs and symptoms (n=69) |
| Study designs | Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) | 29 RCTs (1169 participants; 1102 analysed); six three-arm trials |
| Timing | Clinically important outcomes recorded at the most commonly reported time points; most studies measured at beginning and end of treatment (average treatment time four to 13 months) | Most studies reported outcomes immediately post-treatment or up to 15 months after start of treatment; one study reported longer-term outcomes at three and six years |
Search date: 2023-01. Databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; US NIH Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov; WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)
Questions and results
Show all 3 versionsFacemask vs Untreated control (no treatment)
Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Wits appraisal End of treatment | MD 3.58 [2.78, 4.37] | 2 studies · 72 participants | Ungraded |
Overjet End of treatment (9 to 15 months) | MD 5.04 [4.29, 5.80] | 2 studies · 92 participants | Ungraded |
Self-esteem (Piers-Harris self-concept scale) 3-year follow-up | MD 0.60 [-2.57, 3.77] | 1 study · 63 participants | Ungraded |
Self-esteem (Oral Aesthetic Subjective Impact Score, OASIS) End of treatment | MD -4.00 [-7.40, -0.60] | 1 study · 69 participants | Ungraded |
ANB 6-year follow-up | MD 0.70 [-0.74, 2.14] | 1 study · 65 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Overjet 6-year follow-up | MD 1.30 [-0.16, 2.76] | 1 study · 65 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Self-esteem (Oral Aesthetic Subjective Impact Score, OASIS) 6-year follow-up | MD -2.20 [-7.31, 2.91] | 1 study · 65 participants | Ungraded |
Self-esteem (Oral Aesthetic Subjective Impact Score, OASIS) 3-year follow-up | MD -3.40 [-7.99, 1.19] | 1 study · 63 participants | Ungraded |
Self-esteem (Piers-Harris self-concept scale) End of treatment | MD 1.50 [-0.96, 3.96] | 1 study · 69 participants | Ungraded |
Self-esteem (Piers-Harris self-concept scale) 6-year follow-up | MD -0.30 [-4.17, 3.57] | 1 study · 65 participants | Ungraded |
ANB 3-year follow-up | MD 1.40 [0.43, 2.37] | 1 study · 63 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Overjet 3-year follow-up | MD 2.50 [1.21, 3.79] | 1 study · 63 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Adverse effects (temporomandibular joint signs and symptoms) End of treatment / follow-up | Mandall 2010: no statistical analysis of TMJ signs/symptoms due to low prevalence; at 6-year follow-up reported no adverse effects from facemask. | 1 study · 69 participants | Ungraded |
ANB End of treatment (9 to 15 months) | MD 3.60 [2.68, 4.52] | 5 studies · 197 participants | Ungraded |
Perceived need for surgery in adulthood 6-year follow-up | OR 3.34 [1.21, 9.24] | 1 study · 65 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Facemask only
Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Wits appraisal End of treatment | MD 0.10 [-1.08, 1.29] | 2 studies · 60 participants | Ungraded |
Overjet End of treatment | MD 1.86 [0.39, 3.33] | 1 study · 31 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
ANB End of treatment | MD -0.15 [-0.94, 0.64] | 2 studies · 60 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Nanda facemask vs Conventional facemask
Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
ANB End of treatment | MD 1.29 [0.16, 2.42] | 1 study · 20 participants | Ungraded |
Chin cup vs Untreated control (no treatment)
Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
ANB End of treatment | MD 1.96 [1.58, 2.34] | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Wits appraisal End of treatment | MD 4.87 [4.53, 5.20] | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Chin cup (600 g force) vs Chin cup (300 g force)
Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Wits appraisal End of treatment | MD -0.30 [-1.12, 0.52] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
ANB End of treatment | MD 0.10 [-0.31, 0.51] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Tandem traction bow appliance vs Untreated control (no treatment)
Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
ANB End of treatment | MD 1.70 [1.09, 2.31] | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Overjet End of treatment | MD 3.30 [2.46, 4.14] | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Mandibular headgear vs Chin cup
Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
ANB End of treatment | Arun 1994 (n=60): ANB data not usable (no SDs; Mann-Whitney); no statistically significant difference between interventions (P>0.05). | 1 study · 60 participants | Ungraded |
Mandibular headgear vs Untreated control (no treatment)
Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
ANB End of treatment | Arun 1994 (n=60): ANB data not usable (no SDs); Mann-Whitney P<0.001 benefit for mandibular headgear. Effect ~0.5 degrees, probably not clinically significant. | 1 study · 60 participants | Ungraded |
Reverse Twin Block with lip pads and rapid maxillary expander (RME) vs Untreated control (no treatment)
Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Wits appraisal End of treatment | MD 5.27 [4.04, 6.50] | 1 study · 26 participants | Ungraded |
ANB End of treatment | MD 3.66 [2.73, 4.59] | 1 study · 26 participants | Ungraded |
Reverse Forsus vs Untreated control (no treatment)
Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
ANB End of treatment | MD 2.84 [1.89, 3.79] | 1 study · 22 participants | Ungraded |
Overjet End of treatment | MD 5.54 [4.40, 6.68] | 1 study · 22 participants | Ungraded |
Orthodontic removable traction appliance (ORTA) vs Untreated control (no treatment)
Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Wits appraisal End of treatment | MD 5.96 [4.71, 7.21] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Overjet End of treatment | MD 6.20 [5.52, 6.88] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
ANB End of treatment | MD 3.81 [3.24, 4.38] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Surgically-anchored orthodontic treatment (miniplates) vs Untreated control (no treatment)
Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Overjet End of treatment | MD 7.69 [6.99, 8.40] | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Perceived need for surgery in adulthood | SoF2: Perceived need for surgery in adulthood - Not measured. | 0 studies | No studies |
ANB End of treatment | MD 5.20 [4.48, 5.92] | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Mini maxillary protractor
Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Overjet End of treatment | MD -0.06 [-1.52, 1.40] | 1 study · 32 participants | Ungraded |
ANB End of treatment | MD -0.75 [-1.49, -0.01] | 1 study · 32 participants | Ungraded |
Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Pushing Splints
Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
ANB (ANPog) End of treatment | MD 1.40 [0.29, 2.51] | 1 study · 42 participants | Ungraded |
Wits appraisal End of treatment | MD 0.70 [-0.60, 2.00] | 1 study · 42 participants | Ungraded |
Adverse effects End of treatment | Galeotti 2021: occasional skin irritation on the chin and three appliance breakages (one facemask, two Pushing Splints). | 1 study · 42 participants | Ungraded |
Overjet End of treatment | MD 0.80 [-0.37, 1.97] | 1 study · 42 participants | Ungraded |
Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Modified tandem appliance
Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
ANB End of treatment | MD 0.25 [-0.39, 0.89] | 1 study · 32 participants | Ungraded |
Overjet End of treatment | MD 2.28 [1.35, 3.21] | 1 study · 32 participants | Ungraded |
Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Reverse Forsus
Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Overjet End of treatment | MD 0.46 [-0.90, 1.82] | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
ANB End of treatment | MD 1.59 [0.80, 2.38] | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Reverse Twin Block with lip pads and rapid maxillary expander (RME)
Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
ANB End of treatment | MD -1.04 [-2.07, -0.01] | 1 study · 26 participants | Ungraded |
Wits appraisal End of treatment | MD -1.85 [-3.18, -0.52] | 1 study · 26 participants | Ungraded |
Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Reverse chin cup
Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
ANB End of treatment | MD 0.20 [-0.71, 1.11] | 1 study · 42 participants | Ungraded |
Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Tongue appliance
Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
ANB End of treatment | MD -0.60 [-1.41, 0.21] | 1 study · 47 participants | Ungraded |
Facemask (with frame internal fixation) vs Frankel III functional appliance
Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Wits appraisal End of treatment | MD 0.06 [-0.26, 0.38] | 1 study · 34 participants | Ungraded |
ANB End of treatment | MD -0.11 [-1.29, 1.07] | 1 study · 34 participants | Ungraded |
Bone-anchored intermaxillary traction (BAIMT) vs Removable mandibular retractor (RMR)
Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Overjet 1-year follow-up | MD 0.70 [0.25, 1.15] | 1 study · 38 participants | Ungraded |
Adverse effects / patient-reported (pain, self-confidence) During treatment | Majanni 2016: BAIMT associated with higher pain early in treatment than RMR (P<0.001); RMR negatively impacted self-confidence more than BAIMT at all time points (P<0.001). | 1 study · 38 participants | Ungraded |
ANB 1-year follow-up | MD 1.77 [1.58, 1.96] | 1 study · 38 participants | Ungraded |
Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Facemask with alternating rapid maxillary expansion and constriction (Alt-RAMEC)
Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
ANB End of treatment | MD -0.46 [-1.03, 0.10] | 4 studies · 131 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Wits appraisal End of treatment | MD -0.38 [-1.37, 0.60] | 3 studies · 97 participants | Ungraded |
Overjet | SoF5 (Facemask (Alt-RAMEC) vs facemask (RME)): Overjet - Not measured. | 0 studies | No studies |
A-Nasion perpendicular (A-NPerp) End of treatment | MD 1.13 [0.23, 2.03] | 1 study · 34 participants | Ungraded |
Facemask after Alt-RAMEC vs Facemask started simultaneously with Alt-RAMEC
Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
ANB End of treatment | MD 0.40 [-0.42, 1.22] | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Wits appraisal End of treatment | MD 0.51 [-0.69, 1.71] | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Overjet End of treatment | MD 0.22 [-0.68, 1.12] | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Hybrid Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics vs Conventional Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics
Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Overjet End of treatment | MD 0.91 [-0.56, 2.38] | 1 study · 35 participants | Ungraded |
Wits appraisal End of treatment | MD 0.28 [-1.08, 1.64] | 1 study · 35 participants | Ungraded |
ANB End of treatment | MD 0.55 [-0.40, 1.50] | 1 study · 35 participants | Ungraded |
Surgical miniplates with facemask vs Surgical miniplates with Class III elastics
Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Overjet End of treatment | MD 0.02 [-1.23, 1.27] | 1 study · 20 participants | Ungraded |
ANB End of treatment | MD -0.05 [-1.24, 1.14] | 1 study · 20 participants | Ungraded |
Non-surgical orthodontic treatment (any: facemask, chin cup, tandem traction bow, mandibular headgear, ORTA, reverse Twin Block, Reverse Forsus) vs No treatment
Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Overjet End of treatment (9 to 15 months) | MD 5.03 [3.81, 6.25] | 4 studies · 184 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Wits appraisal End of treatment | MD 4.75 [4.15, 5.35] | 4 studies · 155 participants | Ungraded |
ANB End of treatment (9 to 15 months) | MD 3.05 [2.40, 3.71] | 8 studies · 345 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
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)
Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
ANB End of treatment | MD 0.11 [-0.54, 0.77] | 8 studies · 285 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Perceived need for surgery in adulthood | SoF3: Perceived need for surgery in adulthood - Not measured. | 0 studies | No studies |
Overjet End of treatment | MD 0.96 [-0.12, 2.04] | 4 studies · 136 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Facemask (RME) or modified facemask vs Surgically-anchored appliance (miniscrews or miniplates)
Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Overjet End of treatment | MD -0.40 [-1.30, 0.50] | 1 study · 43 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Perceived need for surgery in adulthood | SoF4: Perceived need for surgery in adulthood - Not measured. | 0 studies | No studies |
Wits appraisal End of treatment | MD 0.50 [-1.27, 2.27] | 1 study · 43 participants | Ungraded |
ANB End of treatment | MD -0.35 [-0.78, 0.07] | 4 studies · 143 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |