Cochrane · intervention · CD003452
Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents
Batista, KBSL, Thiruvenkatachari, B, Harrison, JE, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · Cochrane Library
Full textEvery question was extracted from the full review (methods and results), not only its Summary of Findings table.
Questions
49
current version
GRADE rated
14
No studies
4
Included studies
27
as reported
No studies 4 · 8.2%Ungraded 31 · 63.3%Very low 0 · 0%Low 12 · 24.5%Moderate 2 · 4.1%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 (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion); excluding cleft lip/palate or craniofacial deformity/syndrome or prior surgical treatment | Children/adolescents (age < 16 years) with Class II Division 1 malocclusion (n=1251) |
| Intervention | Early treatment (two-phase) with any orthodontic braces (removable, fixed, functional) or head-braces; any orthodontic braces or head-braces | Functional appliance (fixed and removable); Headgear; Twin Block; Activator; FORSUS FRD; R-appliance; FMA stepwise; Harvold Activator |
| Comparison | Late treatment; no treatment; another type of orthodontic brace or appliance | No treatment; late treatment; other functional appliances; modified Twin Block; prefabricated myobrace (PFA); fixed functional with mini-implants (FMI); fixed functional; intermaxillary elastics; FMA single step; Frankel function regulator; anterior inclined bite plate (AIBP) |
| Outcomes | Primary: prominence of the upper front teeth (overjet in mm or malocclusion index). Secondary: jaw relationship (e.g. ANB); self-esteem; patient satisfaction; incisal trauma; jaw joint problems; number of attendances. Harms: gum health; damage to teeth (e.g. tooth decay); standard of orthodontic treatment | Final overjet; Final ANB; PAR score; Self concept; Incidence of incisal trauma; Overjet change; Patient satisfaction |
| Study designs | RCT | RCT (27 trials) |
| Timing | End of Phase I; end of Phase II; adolescent one-phase | End of Phase I; end of Phase II; adolescent one-phase |
Search date: 2017-09. Databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid
Questions and results
Current version onlyEarly treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in adolescence) with functional appliance vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance
Population: Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Self concept End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | MD -0.83 [-3.97, 2.31] | 1 study · 132 participants | Ungraded |
Incidence of new incisal trauma End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | OR 0.56 [0.33, 0.95] -106 [-175, -10] per 1000 | 3 studies · 332 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Incidence of incisal trauma End of phase I (growth modification phase) | OR 0.72 [0.35, 1.49] | 2 studies · 281 participants | Ungraded |
Final overjet End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | MD 0.21 [-0.1, 0.51] 0.21 [-0.1, 0.51] mm | 3 studies · 343 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Final ANB End of phase I (growth modification phase) | MD -0.89 [-1.38, -0.4] | 3 studies · 419 participants | Ungraded |
Final overjet End of phase I (growth modification phase) | MD -4.17 [-4.61, -3.73] | 3 studies · 432 participants | Ungraded |
Self concept End of phase I (growth modification phase) | MD -3.63 [-7.66, 0.4] | 1 study · 135 participants | Ungraded |
PAR score End of phase I (growth modification phase) | MD -10.52 [-12.32, -8.71] | 2 studies · 349 participants | Ungraded |
Final ANB End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | MD -0.02 [-0.47, 0.43] -0.02 [-0.47, 0.43] degrees | 3 studies · 347 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
PAR score End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | MD 0.62 [-0.66, 1.91] | 3 studies · 360 participants | Ungraded |
Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear
Population: Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
PAR score End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | MD -1.55 [-3.7, 0.6] | 2 studies · 177 participants | Ungraded |
Incidence of new incisal trauma End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | OR 0.45 [0.25, 0.8] -160 [-241, -50] per 1000 | 2 studies · 237 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Final overjet End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | MD -0.22 [-0.56, 0.12] -0.22 [-0.56, 0.12] mm | 2 studies · 238 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Incidence of incisal trauma End of phase I (growth modification phase) | OR 0.76 [0.37, 1.54] | 2 studies · 285 participants | Ungraded |
Final overjet End of phase I (growth modification phase) | MD -1.07 [-1.63, -0.51] | 2 studies · 278 participants | Ungraded |
Final ANB End of phase I (growth modification phase) | MD -0.72 [-1.18, -0.27] | 2 studies · 277 participants | Ungraded |
Final ANB End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | MD -0.27 [-0.8, 0.26] -0.27 [-0.8, 0.26] degrees | 2 studies · 231 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Early treatment (two-phase) with functional appliance
Population: Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Final ANB End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | MD -0.17 [-0.67, 0.34] | 2 studies · 222 participants | Ungraded |
PAR score End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | MD -0.81 [-2.21, 0.58] | 2 studies · 224 participants | Ungraded |
Incidence of incisal trauma End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | OR 0.78 [0.42, 1.47] | 2 studies · 226 participants | Ungraded |
Incidence of incisal trauma End of phase I (growth modification phase) | OR 1.02 [0.48, 2.17] | 2 studies · 282 participants | Ungraded |
Final overjet End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | MD -0.21 [-0.57, 0.15] | 2 studies · 225 participants | Ungraded |
Final ANB End of phase I (growth modification phase) | MD -0.04 [-0.49, 0.41] | 2 studies · 271 participants | Ungraded |
Final overjet End of phase I (growth modification phase) | MD 0.75 [0.21, 1.29] | 2 studies · 271 participants | Ungraded |
Late treatment (one-phase) with removable functional appliance vs No treatment
Population: Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Final ANB End of orthodontic treatment | MD -2.37 [-3.01, -1.74] -2.37 [-3.01, -1.74] degrees | 2 studies · 99 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Incidence of incisal trauma End of orthodontic treatment | Incidence of incisal trauma: Not measured | NR | No studies |
Final overjet End of orthodontic treatment | MD -4.62 [-5.33, -3.92] -4.62 [-5.33, -3.92] mm | 3 studies · 122 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Twin Block functional appliance vs Other functional appliances (Bionator, Herbst, R-appliance, Dynamax, Bite-Jumping)
Population: Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Final ANB End of orthodontic treatment | MD -0.56 [-0.96, -0.16] -0.56 [-0.96, -0.16] degrees | 6 studies · 320 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Final overjet End of orthodontic treatment | MD 0.08 [-0.6, 0.76] 0.08 [-0.6, 0.76] mm | 4 studies · 259 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Incidence of incisal trauma End of orthodontic treatment | Incidence of incisal trauma: Not measured | NR | No studies |
Twin Block functional appliance (conventional) vs Modified Twin Block appliances
Population: Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Final overjet End of orthodontic treatment | MD -0.23 [-0.67, 0.22] | 2 studies · 196 participants | Ungraded |
Activator functional appliance vs Fixed functional appliance (FORSUS FRD EZ)
Population: Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Final ANB End of orthodontic treatment | MD -1.74 [-3.28, -0.2] | 1 study · 24 participants | Ungraded |
Final overjet End of orthodontic treatment | MD 2.19 [0.58, 3.8] | 1 study · 24 participants | Ungraded |
R-appliance vs Anterior inclined bite plate (AIBP)
Population: Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Final ANB End of orthodontic treatment | MD -0.3 [-0.99, 0.39] | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Late treatment (one-phase) with fixed functional appliance vs No treatment
Population: Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Final ANB End of orthodontic treatment | MD -0.53 [-1.27, 0.22] -0.53 [-1.27, 0.22] degrees | 3 studies · 89 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Incidence of incisal trauma End of orthodontic treatment | Incidence of incisal trauma: Not measured | NR | No studies |
Final overjet End of orthodontic treatment | MD -5.46 [-6.63, -4.28] -5.46 [-6.63, -4.28] mm | 2 studies · 61 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Activator functional appliance vs Prefabricated functional myobrace appliance (PFA)
Population: Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Final overjet End of orthodontic treatment | MD -0.6 [-1.63, 0.43] | 1 study · 97 participants | Ungraded |
Fixed functional appliance (FORSUS FRD) vs Fixed functional appliance with mini-implants (FMI)
Population: Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Final ANB End of orthodontic treatment | MD 0.22 [-0.86, 1.3] | 2 studies · 60 participants | Ungraded |
Patient satisfaction End of orthodontic treatment | OR 0.18 [0.01, 3.97] | 1 study · 32 participants | Ungraded |
Final overjet End of orthodontic treatment | MD -0.36 [-1.07, 0.35] | 1 study · 29 participants | Ungraded |
Removable functional appliance vs Fixed functional appliance
Population: Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Final overjet End of orthodontic treatment | MD 0.74 [0.15, 1.33] 0.74 [0.15, 1.33] mm | 2 studies · 154 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Final ANB End of orthodontic treatment | MD -1.04 [-1.6, -0.49] -1.04 [-1.6, -0.49] degrees | 3 studies · 185 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Incidence of incisal trauma End of orthodontic treatment | Incidence of Incisal trauma: Not measured | NR | No studies |
Fixed functional appliance (FORSUS FRD) vs Intermaxillary elastics
Population: Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Final ANB End of orthodontic treatment | MD -0.9 [-1.96, 0.16] | 1 study · 28 participants | Ungraded |
Final overjet End of orthodontic treatment | MD 0.28 [-0.35, 0.91] | 1 study · 28 participants | Ungraded |
FMA stepwise advancement (SWG) vs FMA single step advancement (SSG)
Population: Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Final overjet End of orthodontic treatment | MD 0.23 [-0.26, 0.72] | 1 study · 34 participants | Ungraded |
Final ANB End of orthodontic treatment | MD -0.69 [-1.19, -0.19] | 1 study · 34 participants | Ungraded |
Harvold Activator vs Frankel function regulator
Population: Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Overjet change End of orthodontic treatment | MD -2.93 [-5.37, -0.49] | 1 study · 25 participants | Ungraded |
Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in adolescence) with functional appliance vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance
Population: Children and/or adolescents (age < 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Final overjet End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | MD 0.21 [-0.1, 0.51] 0.21 [-0.1, 0.51] mm | 3 studies · 343 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Final overjet End of phase I (growth modification phase) | MD -4.17 [-4.61, -3.73] | 3 studies · 432 participants | Ungraded |
PAR score End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | MD 0.62 [-0.66, 1.91] | 3 studies · 360 participants | Ungraded |
Harms End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | Harms: None reported | NR | No studies |
PAR score End of phase I (growth modification phase) | MD -11.16 [-12.86, -9.46] | 3 studies · 380 participants | Ungraded |
Final ANB End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | MD -0.02 [-0.47, 0.43] | 3 studies · 347 participants | Ungraded |
Self concept End of phase I (growth modification phase) | MD -3.63 [-7.66, 0.4] | 1 study · 135 participants | Ungraded |
Final ANB End of phase I (growth modification phase) | MD -0.89 [-1.38, -0.4] | 3 studies · 419 participants | Ungraded |
Incidence of new incisal trauma End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | OR 0.59 [0.35, 0.99] -5 [-8, 0] per 100 | 3 studies · 357 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Self concept End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | MD -0.83 [-3.97, 2.31] | 1 study · 132 participants | Ungraded |
Incidence of incisal trauma End of phase I (growth modification phase) | OR 0.72 [0.35, 1.49] | 2 studies · 281 participants | Ungraded |
Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear
Population: Children and/or adolescents (age < 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Final ANB End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | MD -0.27 [-0.8, 0.26] | 2 studies · 231 participants | Ungraded |
Incidence of incisal trauma End of phase I (growth modification phase) | OR 0.82 [0.41, 1.64] | 2 studies · 285 participants | Ungraded |
Final ANB End of phase I (growth modification phase) | MD -0.72 [-1.18, -0.27] | 2 studies · 277 participants | Ungraded |
Harms End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | Harms: None reported | NR | No studies |
Final overjet End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | MD -0.22 [-0.56, 0.12] -0.22 [-0.56, 0.12] mm | 2 studies · 238 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Final overjet End of phase I (growth modification phase) | MD -1.07 [-1.63, -0.51] | 2 studies · 278 participants | Ungraded |
Incidence of new incisal trauma End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | OR 0.47 [0.27, 0.83] -16 [-24, -5] per 100 | 2 studies · 237 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
PAR score End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | MD -1.55 [-3.7, 0.6] | 2 studies · 177 participants | Ungraded |
Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Early treatment (two-phase) with functional appliance
Population: Children and/or adolescents (age < 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Final overjet End of phase I (growth modification phase) | MD 0.75 [0.21, 1.29] | 2 studies · 271 participants | Ungraded |
Final ANB End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | MD -0.17 [-0.67, 0.34] | 2 studies · 222 participants | Ungraded |
Incidence of incisal trauma End of phase I (growth modification phase) | OR 1.1 [0.53, 2.3] | 2 studies · 282 participants | Ungraded |
Final ANB End of phase I (growth modification phase) | MD -0.04 [-0.49, 0.41] | 2 studies · 271 participants | Ungraded |
PAR score End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | MD -0.81 [-2.21, 0.58] | 2 studies · 224 participants | Ungraded |
Incidence of incisal trauma End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | OR 0.79 [0.43, 1.44] | 2 studies · 226 participants | Ungraded |
Final overjet End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | MD -0.21 [-0.57, 0.15] | 2 studies · 225 participants | Ungraded |
Late treatment (one-phase) with removable functional appliance vs No treatment
Population: Children and/or adolescents (age < 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Final overjet End of orthodontic treatment | MD -5.22 [-6.51, -3.93] | 1 study · 47 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Final ANB End of orthodontic treatment | MD -2.37 [-3.01, -1.74] | 2 studies · 99 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Twin Block functional appliance vs Other functional appliances (Bionator, Herbst, R-appliance, Dynamax, Bite-Jumping)
Population: Children and/or adolescents (age < 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Final overjet End of orthodontic treatment | MD 0.01 [-0.45, 0.48] | 3 studies · 219 participants | Ungraded |
Final ANB End of orthodontic treatment | MD -0.63 [-1.17, -0.08] | 3 studies · 210 participants | Ungraded |
Twin Block functional appliance (conventional) vs Modified Twin Block appliances
Population: Children and/or adolescents (age < 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Final overjet End of orthodontic treatment | MD -0.23 [-0.67, 0.22] | 2 studies · 196 participants | Ungraded |
ANB change End of orthodontic treatment | MD -0.24 [-1.17, 0.69] | 1 study · 60 participants | Ungraded |
Activator functional appliance vs Fixed functional appliance (FORSUS FRD EZ)
Population: Children and/or adolescents (age < 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Final ANB End of orthodontic treatment | MD -1.74 [-3.28, -0.2] | 1 study · 24 participants | Ungraded |
Final overjet End of orthodontic treatment | MD 2.19 [0.58, 3.8] | 1 study · 24 participants | Ungraded |
R-appliance vs Anterior inclined bite plate (AIBP)
Population: Children and/or adolescents (age < 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Final ANB End of orthodontic treatment | MD -0.3 [-0.99, 0.39] | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in adolescence) with functional appliance vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance
Population: Children or adolescents (age < 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II Division 1 malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Self concept End of phase I (growth modification phase) | MD 3.63 [-0.4, 7.66] | 1 study · 135 participants | Ungraded |
PAR score End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | MD 0.96 [-1.68, 3.61] | 3 studies · 360 participants | Ungraded |
PAR score End of phase I (growth modification phase) | MD -12.63 [-22.28, -2.99] | 3 studies · 380 participants | Ungraded |
Final overjet End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | MD 0.24 [-0.32, 0.8] | 3 studies · 343 participants | Ungraded |
Incidence of new incisal trauma End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | OR 0.4 [0.17, 0.94] | 1 study · 93 participants | Ungraded |
Final ANB End of phase I (growth modification phase) | MD -1.35 [-2.57, -0.14] | 3 studies · 419 participants | Ungraded |
Final overjet End of phase I (growth modification phase) | MD -4.04 [-7.47, -0.6] | 3 studies · 432 participants | Ungraded |
ANB change End of phase I (growth modification phase) | MD -0.55 [-0.92, -0.18] | 3 studies · 318 participants | Ungraded |
Final ANB End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | MD -0.03 [-0.55, 0.48] | 3 studies · 347 participants | Ungraded |
Incidence of incisal trauma End of phase I (growth modification phase) | OR 0.31 [0.11, 0.86] | 1 study · 113 participants | Ungraded |
Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear
Population: Children or adolescents (age < 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II Division 1 malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
PAR score End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | MD -1.55 [-3.7, 0.6] | 2 studies · 177 participants | Ungraded |
Incidence of new incisal trauma End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | OR 0.25 [0.1, 0.6] | 1 study · 97 participants | Ungraded |
Final ANB End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | MD -0.27 [-0.8, 0.26] | 2 studies · 231 participants | Ungraded |
Final ANB End of phase I (growth modification phase) | MD -0.72 [-1.18, -0.27] | 2 studies · 277 participants | Ungraded |
Final overjet End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | MD -0.24 [-0.63, 0.16] | 2 studies · 238 participants | Ungraded |
Final overjet End of phase I (growth modification phase) | MD -1.07 [-1.63, -0.51] | 2 studies · 278 participants | Ungraded |
Incidence of incisal trauma End of phase I (growth modification phase) | OR 0.52 [0.21, 1.3] | 1 study · 111 participants | Ungraded |
Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Early treatment (two-phase) with functional appliance
Population: Children or adolescents (age < 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II Division 1 malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Final ANB End of phase I (growth modification phase) | MD -0.04 [-0.49, 0.41] | 2 studies · 271 participants | Ungraded |
Final overjet End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | MD -0.21 [-0.57, 0.15] | 2 studies · 225 participants | Ungraded |
Final ANB End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | MD -0.13 [-0.78, 0.53] | 2 studies · 222 participants | Ungraded |
Incidence of incisal trauma End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | OR 0.62 [0.24, 1.62] | 1 study · 88 participants | Ungraded |
Incidence of incisal trauma End of phase I (growth modification phase) | OR 1.68 [0.55, 5.13] | 1 study · 102 participants | Ungraded |
Final overjet End of phase I (growth modification phase) | MD 1.26 [-0.92, 3.44] | 2 studies · 271 participants | Ungraded |
ANB change End of phase I (growth modification phase) | MD 0.01 [-0.28, 0.29] | 2 studies · 284 participants | Ungraded |
PAR score End of orthodontic treatment (phase II) | MD -0.81 [-2.21, 0.58] | 2 studies · 224 participants | Ungraded |
Late treatment (one-phase) with removable functional appliance vs No treatment
Population: Children or adolescents (age < 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II Division 1 malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Final overjet End of orthodontic treatment | MD -5.22 [-6.51, -3.93] | 1 study · 47 participants | Ungraded |
Final ANB End of orthodontic treatment | MD -2.27 [-3.22, -1.31] | 2 studies · 99 participants | Ungraded |
Twin Block functional appliance vs Other functional appliances (Bionator, Herbst, R-appliance, Dynamax, Bite-Jumping)
Population: Children or adolescents (age < 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II Division 1 malocclusion)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Final ANB End of orthodontic treatment | MD -0.68 [-1.32, -0.04] | 2 studies · 155 participants | Ungraded |
Final overjet End of orthodontic treatment | MD 0.47 [-0.12, 1.06] | 2 studies · 164 participants | Ungraded |
Early orthodontic treatment (removable, fixed, functional or head-brace) vs Late/delayed treatment
Population: Children and/or adolescents (age 16 years or less) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcome NR | no estimate extracted | 0 studies | No studies |
Orthodontic brace/appliance (one type) vs Another active orthodontic intervention
Population: Children and/or adolescents (age 16 years or less) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcome NR | no estimate extracted | 0 studies | No studies |
Orthodontic brace/appliance vs No treatment
Population: Children and/or adolescents (age 16 years or less) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcome NR | no estimate extracted | 0 studies | No studies |