Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17054268›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2006

Orthodontic treatment for deep bite and retroclined upper front teeth in children.

D T Millett, S J Cunningham, K D O'Brien, P Benson, A Williams, C M de Oliveira

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Orthodontics: Unacceptable scaremongering.British dental journal · 2017
    Article
  10. Orthodontics: Not so fast.British dental journal · 2016
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Class II division 2 treatment--does skeletal maturity influence success and stability?Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2013
    Article
  14. Stability of deep-bite correction: A systematic review.Journal of the World federation of orthodontists · 2012
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

D T MillettUniversity Dental School and Hospital, Oral Health and Development, Wilton, Cork, Ireland. d.millett@ucc.ie
S J Cunningham
K D O'Brien
P Benson
A Williams
C M de Oliveira
Cork University Hospital · IEEastman Dental Hospital · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCorrection of the type of dental problem where the bite is deep and the upper front teeth are retroclined (Class II division 2 malocclusion) may be carried out using different types of orthodontic treatment. However, in severe cases, surgery to the jaws in combination with orthodontics may be required. In growing children, treatment may sometimes be carried out using special upper and lower dental braces (functional appliances) that can be removed from the mouth. In many cases this treatment does not involve taking out any permanent teeth. Often, however, further treatment is needed with fixed braces to get the best result. In other cases, treatment aims to move the upper first permanent molars backwards to provide space for the correction of the front teeth. This may be carried out by applying a force to the teeth and jaws from the back of the head using a head brace (headgear) and transmitting this force to a part of a fixed or removable dental brace. This treatment may or may not involve the removal of permanent teeth. In some cases, neither functional appliances nor headgear are required and treatment may be carried out without extraction of any permanent teeth. Instead of using a headgear, in certain cases, the back teeth are held back in other ways such as with an arch across or in contact with the front of the roof of the mouth which links two bands glued to the back teeth. Often in these cases, two permanent teeth are taken out from the middle of the upper arch (one on each side) to provide room to correct the upper front teeth. It is important for orthodontists to find out whether orthodontic treatment only, carried out without the removal of permanent teeth, in children with a Class II division 2 malocclusion produces a result which is any different from no orthodontic treatment or orthodontic treatment only involving extraction of permanent teeth.

objectivesTo establish whether orthodontic treatment, carried out without the removal of permanent teeth, in children with a Class II division 2 malocclusion, produces a result which is any different from no orthodontic treatment or orthodontic treatment involving removal of permanent teeth. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. The handsearching of the main international orthodontic journals was updated to April 2006. There were no restrictions with regard to publication status or language of publication. International researchers, likely to be involved in Class II division 2 clinical trials, were contacted to identify any unpublished or ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of orthodontic treatments to correct deep bite and retroclined upper front teeth in children. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were to be conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Results were to be expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors. MAIN

resultsNo RCTs or CCTs were identified that assessed the treatment of Class II division 2 malocclusion in children. AUTHORS'

conclusionsIt is not possible to provide any evidence-based guidance to recommend or discourage any type of orthodontic treatment to correct Class II division 2 malocclusion in children.

Indexed as

Orthodontic Appliances, FunctionalChildHumansMalocclusion, Angle Class IIOrthodontics, Corrective

Identifiers

PMID17054268
OpenAlexW4229822307

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.