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

Oral HealthOrthodontics3 versionsAMSTAR 2: not assessed
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

ElementPlanned (methods)Found (results)
PopulationChildren 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
InterventionNon-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 interventionFacemask (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)
ComparisonNo treatment / delayed treatment / another active interventionUntreated control (n=431)
OutcomesPrimary: 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 designsRandomised controlled trials (RCTs)29 RCTs (1169 participants; 1102 analysed); six three-arm trials
TimingClinically 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

Current version only

Facemask vs Untreated control (no treatment)

Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
CD003451.PUB3 (current) · 15 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Wits appraisal
End of treatment
MD 3.58 [2.78, 4.37]2 studies · 72 participantsUngraded
Overjet
End of treatment (9 to 15 months)
MD 5.04 [4.29, 5.80]2 studies · 92 participantsUngraded
Self-esteem (Piers-Harris self-concept scale)
3-year follow-up
MD 0.60 [-2.57, 3.77]1 study · 63 participantsUngraded
Self-esteem (Oral Aesthetic Subjective Impact Score, OASIS)
End of treatment
MD -4.00 [-7.40, -0.60]1 study · 69 participantsUngraded
ANB
6-year follow-up
MD 0.70 [-0.74, 2.14]1 study · 65 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Overjet
6-year follow-up
MD 1.30 [-0.16, 2.76]1 study · 65 participantsLow
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 participantsUngraded
Self-esteem (Oral Aesthetic Subjective Impact Score, OASIS)
3-year follow-up
MD -3.40 [-7.99, 1.19]1 study · 63 participantsUngraded
Self-esteem (Piers-Harris self-concept scale)
End of treatment
MD 1.50 [-0.96, 3.96]1 study · 69 participantsUngraded
Self-esteem (Piers-Harris self-concept scale)
6-year follow-up
MD -0.30 [-4.17, 3.57]1 study · 65 participantsUngraded
ANB
3-year follow-up
MD 1.40 [0.43, 2.37]1 study · 63 participantsModerate
Downgraded: risk of bias
Overjet
3-year follow-up
MD 2.50 [1.21, 3.79]1 study · 63 participantsModerate
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 participantsUngraded
ANB
End of treatment (9 to 15 months)
MD 3.60 [2.68, 4.52]5 studies · 197 participantsUngraded
Perceived need for surgery in adulthood
6-year follow-up
OR 3.34 [1.21, 9.24]1 study · 65 participantsLow
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)
CD003451.PUB3 (current) · 3 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Wits appraisal
End of treatment
MD 0.10 [-1.08, 1.29]2 studies · 60 participantsUngraded
Overjet
End of treatment
MD 1.86 [0.39, 3.33]1 study · 31 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
ANB
End of treatment
MD -0.15 [-0.94, 0.64]2 studies · 60 participantsLow
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)
CD003451.PUB3 (current) · 1 question
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
ANB
End of treatment
MD 1.29 [0.16, 2.42]1 study · 20 participantsUngraded

Chin cup vs Untreated control (no treatment)

Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
CD003451.PUB3 (current) · 2 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
ANB
End of treatment
MD 1.96 [1.58, 2.34]1 study · 50 participantsUngraded
Wits appraisal
End of treatment
MD 4.87 [4.53, 5.20]1 study · 50 participantsUngraded

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)
CD003451.PUB3 (current) · 2 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Wits appraisal
End of treatment
MD -0.30 [-1.12, 0.52]1 study · 40 participantsUngraded
ANB
End of treatment
MD 0.10 [-0.31, 0.51]1 study · 40 participantsUngraded

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)
CD003451.PUB3 (current) · 2 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
ANB
End of treatment
MD 1.70 [1.09, 2.31]1 study · 30 participantsUngraded
Overjet
End of treatment
MD 3.30 [2.46, 4.14]1 study · 30 participantsUngraded

Mandibular headgear vs Chin cup

Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
CD003451.PUB3 (current) · 1 question
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / 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 participantsUngraded

Mandibular headgear vs Untreated control (no treatment)

Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
CD003451.PUB3 (current) · 1 question
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / 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 participantsUngraded

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)
CD003451.PUB3 (current) · 2 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Wits appraisal
End of treatment
MD 5.27 [4.04, 6.50]1 study · 26 participantsUngraded
ANB
End of treatment
MD 3.66 [2.73, 4.59]1 study · 26 participantsUngraded

Reverse Forsus vs Untreated control (no treatment)

Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
CD003451.PUB3 (current) · 2 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
ANB
End of treatment
MD 2.84 [1.89, 3.79]1 study · 22 participantsUngraded
Overjet
End of treatment
MD 5.54 [4.40, 6.68]1 study · 22 participantsUngraded

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)
CD003451.PUB3 (current) · 3 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Wits appraisal
End of treatment
MD 5.96 [4.71, 7.21]1 study · 40 participantsUngraded
Overjet
End of treatment
MD 6.20 [5.52, 6.88]1 study · 40 participantsUngraded
ANB
End of treatment
MD 3.81 [3.24, 4.38]1 study · 40 participantsUngraded

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)
CD003451.PUB3 (current) · 3 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Overjet
End of treatment
MD 7.69 [6.99, 8.40]1 study · 30 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Perceived need for surgery in adulthood
SoF2: Perceived need for surgery in adulthood - Not measured.0 studiesNo studies
ANB
End of treatment
MD 5.20 [4.48, 5.92]1 study · 30 participantsLow
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)
CD003451.PUB3 (current) · 2 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Overjet
End of treatment
MD -0.06 [-1.52, 1.40]1 study · 32 participantsUngraded
ANB
End of treatment
MD -0.75 [-1.49, -0.01]1 study · 32 participantsUngraded

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)
CD003451.PUB3 (current) · 4 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
ANB (ANPog)
End of treatment
MD 1.40 [0.29, 2.51]1 study · 42 participantsUngraded
Wits appraisal
End of treatment
MD 0.70 [-0.60, 2.00]1 study · 42 participantsUngraded
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 participantsUngraded
Overjet
End of treatment
MD 0.80 [-0.37, 1.97]1 study · 42 participantsUngraded

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)
CD003451.PUB3 (current) · 2 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
ANB
End of treatment
MD 0.25 [-0.39, 0.89]1 study · 32 participantsUngraded
Overjet
End of treatment
MD 2.28 [1.35, 3.21]1 study · 32 participantsUngraded

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)
CD003451.PUB3 (current) · 2 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Overjet
End of treatment
MD 0.46 [-0.90, 1.82]1 study · 30 participantsUngraded
ANB
End of treatment
MD 1.59 [0.80, 2.38]1 study · 30 participantsUngraded

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)
CD003451.PUB3 (current) · 2 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
ANB
End of treatment
MD -1.04 [-2.07, -0.01]1 study · 26 participantsUngraded
Wits appraisal
End of treatment
MD -1.85 [-3.18, -0.52]1 study · 26 participantsUngraded

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)
CD003451.PUB3 (current) · 1 question
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
ANB
End of treatment
MD 0.20 [-0.71, 1.11]1 study · 42 participantsUngraded

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)
CD003451.PUB3 (current) · 1 question
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
ANB
End of treatment
MD -0.60 [-1.41, 0.21]1 study · 47 participantsUngraded

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)
CD003451.PUB3 (current) · 2 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Wits appraisal
End of treatment
MD 0.06 [-0.26, 0.38]1 study · 34 participantsUngraded
ANB
End of treatment
MD -0.11 [-1.29, 1.07]1 study · 34 participantsUngraded

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)
CD003451.PUB3 (current) · 3 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Overjet
1-year follow-up
MD 0.70 [0.25, 1.15]1 study · 38 participantsUngraded
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 participantsUngraded
ANB
1-year follow-up
MD 1.77 [1.58, 1.96]1 study · 38 participantsUngraded

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)
CD003451.PUB3 (current) · 4 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
ANB
End of treatment
MD -0.46 [-1.03, 0.10]4 studies · 131 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Wits appraisal
End of treatment
MD -0.38 [-1.37, 0.60]3 studies · 97 participantsUngraded
Overjet
SoF5 (Facemask (Alt-RAMEC) vs facemask (RME)): Overjet - Not measured.0 studiesNo studies
A-Nasion perpendicular (A-NPerp)
End of treatment
MD 1.13 [0.23, 2.03]1 study · 34 participantsUngraded

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)
CD003451.PUB3 (current) · 3 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
ANB
End of treatment
MD 0.40 [-0.42, 1.22]1 study · 30 participantsUngraded
Wits appraisal
End of treatment
MD 0.51 [-0.69, 1.71]1 study · 30 participantsUngraded
Overjet
End of treatment
MD 0.22 [-0.68, 1.12]1 study · 30 participantsUngraded

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)
CD003451.PUB3 (current) · 3 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Overjet
End of treatment
MD 0.91 [-0.56, 2.38]1 study · 35 participantsUngraded
Wits appraisal
End of treatment
MD 0.28 [-1.08, 1.64]1 study · 35 participantsUngraded
ANB
End of treatment
MD 0.55 [-0.40, 1.50]1 study · 35 participantsUngraded

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)
CD003451.PUB3 (current) · 2 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Overjet
End of treatment
MD 0.02 [-1.23, 1.27]1 study · 20 participantsUngraded
ANB
End of treatment
MD -0.05 [-1.24, 1.14]1 study · 20 participantsUngraded

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)
CD003451.PUB3 (current) · 3 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Overjet
End of treatment (9 to 15 months)
MD 5.03 [3.81, 6.25]4 studies · 184 participantsModerate
Downgraded: risk of bias
Wits appraisal
End of treatment
MD 4.75 [4.15, 5.35]4 studies · 155 participantsUngraded
ANB
End of treatment (9 to 15 months)
MD 3.05 [2.40, 3.71]8 studies · 345 participantsModerate
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)
CD003451.PUB3 (current) · 3 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
ANB
End of treatment
MD 0.11 [-0.54, 0.77]8 studies · 285 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency
Perceived need for surgery in adulthood
SoF3: Perceived need for surgery in adulthood - Not measured.0 studiesNo studies
Overjet
End of treatment
MD 0.96 [-0.12, 2.04]4 studies · 136 participantsVery 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)
CD003451.PUB3 (current) · 4 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Overjet
End of treatment
MD -0.40 [-1.30, 0.50]1 study · 43 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Perceived need for surgery in adulthood
SoF4: Perceived need for surgery in adulthood - Not measured.0 studiesNo studies
Wits appraisal
End of treatment
MD 0.50 [-1.27, 2.27]1 study · 43 participantsUngraded
ANB
End of treatment
MD -0.35 [-0.78, 0.07]4 studies · 143 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision

Facemask vs Untreated control (no treatment)

Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
CD003451.PUB2 · 10 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Self-esteem (Oral Aesthetic Subjective Impact Score, OASIS)
3-year follow-up
MD -3.40 [-7.99, 1.19]1 study · 63 participantsUngraded
Adverse effects (temporomandibular joint signs and symptoms)
End of treatment / follow-up
Mandall 2010: TMJ signs and symptoms recorded; no statistical analysis carried out because of low prevalence at all time points.1 study · 69 participantsUngraded
ANB
3-year follow-up
MD 1.40 [0.43, 2.37]1 study · 63 participantsModerate
Downgraded: imprecision
Wits appraisal
End of treatment
MD -3.84 [-5.31, -2.37]1 study · 46 participantsUngraded
Self-esteem (Piers-Harris self-concept scale)
3-year follow-up
MD 0.60 [-2.57, 3.77]1 study · 63 participantsUngraded
Overjet
3-year follow-up
MD 2.50 [1.21, 3.79]1 study · 63 participantsModerate
Downgraded: imprecision
Self-esteem (Oral Aesthetic Subjective Impact Score, OASIS)
End of treatment
MD -4.00 [-7.40, -0.60]1 study · 69 participantsUngraded
ANB
End of treatment (1 year)
MD 3.93 [3.46, 4.39]3 studies · 155 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency
Self-esteem (Piers-Harris self-concept scale)
End of treatment
MD 1.50 [-0.96, 3.96]1 study · 69 participantsUngraded
Overjet
End of treatment (1 year)
MD 4.10 [3.04, 5.16]1 study · 69 participantsModerate
Downgraded: 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)
CD003451.PUB2 · 2 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
ANB
End of treatment
MD -0.13 [-1.40, 1.14]1 study · 46 participantsUngraded
Wits appraisal
End of treatment
MD -0.16 [-1.63, 1.31]1 study · 46 participantsUngraded

Nanda facemask vs Conventional facemask

Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
CD003451.PUB2 · 1 question
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
ANB
End of treatment
MD 1.29 [0.16, 2.42]1 study · 20 participantsUngraded

Chin cup vs Untreated control (no treatment)

Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
CD003451.PUB2 · 2 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
ANB
End of treatment (1 year)
MD 1.96 [1.58, 2.34]2 studies · 90 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Wits appraisal
End of treatment
MD 4.94 [4.45, 5.42]1 studyUngraded

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)
CD003451.PUB2 · 2 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
ANB
End of treatment
MD 0.10 [-0.31, 0.51]1 studyUngraded
Wits appraisal
End of treatment
MD -0.30 [-1.12, 0.52]1 studyUngraded

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)
CD003451.PUB2 · 2 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Overjet
End of treatment (1 year)
MD 3.30 [2.46, 4.14]1 study · 30 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
ANB
End of treatment (1 year)
MD 1.70 [1.09, 2.31]1 study · 30 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision

Mandibular headgear vs Chin cup

Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
CD003451.PUB2 · 1 question
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
ANB
End of treatment
Arun 1994 (n=60): ANB data not usable (no standard deviations; Mann-Whitney P values); no statistically significant difference between the two active interventions (P>0.05).1 study · 60 participantsUngraded

Mandibular headgear vs Untreated control (no treatment)

Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
CD003451.PUB2 · 1 question
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
ANB
End of treatment
Arun 1994 (n=60): ANB data not usable (no standard deviations); Mann-Whitney P<0.001 showed a statistically significant benefit for mandibular headgear vs control.1 study · 60 participantsUngraded

Orthodontic treatment (any: removable/fixed/functional braces, chin cup, facemask, reverse headgear) vs No treatment / delayed treatment / another active intervention

Population: Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
CD003451 · 7 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Health of the gums (gingivae)
Protocol only; no studies searched or included. Planned outcome.NRNo studies
Jaw joint problems (temporomandibular)
Protocol only; no studies searched or included. Planned outcome.NRNo studies
Relationship between upper and lower jaw
Protocol only; no studies searched or included. Planned outcome.NRNo studies
Self-esteem
Protocol only; no studies searched or included. Planned outcome.NRNo studies
Patient satisfaction
Protocol only; no studies searched or included. Planned outcome.NRNo studies
Damage to the teeth (e.g. tooth decay)
Protocol only; no studies searched or included. Planned outcome.NRNo studies
Prominence of the lower front teeth (overjet, mm or index of malocclusion)
Protocol only; no studies searched or included. Planned outcome.NRNo studies