Summary of findings 4. Late treatment (one‐phase in adolescence): comparison among different types of appliances used for treatment of prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion).
| Late treatment (one‐phase in adolescence): comparison among different types of appliances used for treatment of 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 appliances Comparison: Twin Block | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Different types of appliances | Twin Block | |||||
| Overjet (mm) (smaller value better) Follow‐up at end of orthodontic treatment |
Mean final overjet ranged from 2.68 mm to 4.40 mm | Mean final overjet was 0.08 mm higher (0.6 lower to 0.76 higher) | 259 (4) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1 2 | ||
| Incidence of Incisal trauma | Not measured | |||||
| ANB (°) Follow‐up at end of orthodontic treatment |
Mean final ANB ranged from 3.63° to 5.00° | Mean final ANB was −0.56° lower (0.96 lower to 0.16 lower) | 320 (6) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low3 4 | ||
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI) CI: Confidence interval; MD: Mean | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect | ||||||
1 Downgraded as 2 of 4 studies were at high risk of bias
2 Dowgraded due to heterogeneity (heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.25; Chi² = 6.61, df = 3 (P = 0.09); I² = 55%)
3 Downgraded as 3 of 6 studies were at high risk of bias
4 Downgraded as the interventions in the comparison groups were not similar