Summary of findings 3. Late treatment (one‐phase in adolescence) with functional appliance versus no treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion).

Late treatment (one‐phase in adolescence) with functional appliance versus no treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
Patient or population: adolescents (age between 12 and 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth Intervention: late treatment in adolescence with different types of functional appliances Comparison: no treatment
Outcomes	Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	Number of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	No treatment	Late treatment with functional appliances
Fixed functional appliances
Overjet (mm) (smaller value better) Follow‐up at end of orthodontic treatment	Mean final overjet ranged from 7.47 to 10.56 mm	Mean final overjet was 5.46 mm lower (6.63 lower to 4.28 lower)		61 (2)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1
Incidence of incisal trauma	Not measured
ANB (°) Follow‐up at end of orthodontic treatment	Mean final ANB ranged from 6.30° to 7.92°	Mean final ANB was 0.53° lower (1.27 lower to 0.22 lower)		89 (3)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ low2
Removable functional appliances
Overjet (mm) (smaller value better) Follow‐up at end of orthodontic treatment	Mean final overjet ranged from 7.8 to 9.9 mm	Mean final overjet was 4.62 mm lower (5.33 lower to 3.92 lower)		122 (3)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ low3
Incidence of incisal trauma	Not measured
ANB (°) Follow‐up at end of orthodontic treatment	Mean final ANB ranged from 6.5° to 6.53°	Mean final ANB was 2.37° lower (3.01 lower to 1.74 lower)		99 (2)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ low3

¹ Downgraded one level as both studies were at unclear risk of bias and one level because of very high heterogeneity (I² = 95%)

² Downgraded one level as the three studies were at unclear risk of bias and one level for moderate heterogeneity (I² = 51%)

³ Downgraded two levels as both studies were at high risk of bias