Skip to main content
. 2015 Jul 1;38(3):237–250. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjv048

Table 8.

Summary of studies characteristics and results of the included studies assessing Class II headgear appliances.

Reference Sample Outcomesa Results
Baseline G1 ΔG1b Baseline G2 ΔG2b ΔG1 − ΔG2 P-valuec
Group 1 Group 2 Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Ngan et al. (36) HPA Untreated MPA (°) NA 1.8 (2.1) NA 0.0 (2.1) 1.8 NS
n = 8 n = 8 SN.PP (°) 0.8 (1.8) 0.0 (1.0) 0.8 NS
6♀/2♂ 6♀/2♂
10.2 yrs Age-matched
OP: 14 months
Jacob et al. (24) MTA Untreated MPA (°) 35.9 (5.3) 0.6 (1.6) 36.2 (3.6) 0.1 (0.9) −0.5 NS
n = 13 n = 22 NSPog (°) 77.2 (5.1) 0.2 (1.1) 77.2 (3.0) 0.3 (0.6) −0.1 NS
12♀/1♂ 20♀/2♂ SN.PP 2 (°) 3.9 (3.4) 2.1 (1.5) 6.9 (2.7) 0.0 (0.8) 2.1 P < 0.001
8.8±0.7 yrs 8.8±0.7 yrs PP.MP (°) 31.9 (4.6) 2.7 (1.9) 29.1 (3.4) 0.2 (1.1) −2.5 P < 0.001
OP: 12 months

SD, standard-deviation; ♀, female; ♂, male; yrs, years; G1, group 1; G2, group 2; NS, non-significant; OP, observation period; NA, not available; HPA, high-pull activator; MTA, modified Thurow appliance; ΔG1, difference between final and baseline measurements for group 1; ΔG2, difference between final and baseline measurements for group 2; ΔG1 − ΔG2, difference between changes observed for groups 1 and 2.

aPre-treatment statistically significant (P < 0.05) differences on bold font, and absence of pre-treatment comparison on italic font.

bStatistically significant (P < 0.05) changes on bold font, and absence of intra-group comparison on italic font.

cConcerning ΔG1 − ΔG2.