Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36498570›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2022

Dental and Skeletal Effects of Herbst Appliance, Forsus Fatigue Resistance Device, and Class II Elastics-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Stefanos Matthaios, Apostolos I Tsolakis, Anna-Bettina Haidich, Ioannis Galanis, Ioannis A Tsolakis

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05993156 (Effects of Modified Fixed Twin Block Versus Removable Twin Block on Skeletal Class 2 Growing Patients With Mandibular Deficiency), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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.

NCT05993156 naunknown statusnot on this map

Effects of Modified Fixed Twin Block Versus Removable Twin Block on Skeletal Class 2 Growing Patients With Mandibular Deficiency

TypeinterventionalSponsorCairo UniversityRan2022 to 2023Enrolled24ConditionsMalocclusion, Angle Class II, Mandible SmallArmsmodified Fixed twinblock, removable twin block
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Stefanos MatthaiosDepartment of Orthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7936-3706
Apostolos I TsolakisDepartment of Orthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3019-5438
Anna-Bettina HaidichDepartment of Hygiene, Social-Preventive Medicine & Medical Statistics, Medical School, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece.ORCID 0000-0001-5100-8799
Ioannis Galanis2nd Propaedeutic Department of Surgery, Medical School, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece.
Ioannis A TsolakisDepartment of Orthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5435-4889

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Our study aimed to systematically summarize the dentoskeletal effects of Herbst appliance; Forsus fatigue resistance device; and Class II elastics in adolescent Class II malocclusion. Methods: Five databases; unpublished literature; and reference lists were last searched in August 2022. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies of at least 10 Class II growing patients that assessed dentoskeletal effects through cephalometric/CBCT superimpositions were eligible. The included studies quality was assessed with the RoB 2 and ROBINS-I tools. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed. Heterogeneity was explored with subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Results: Among nine studies (298 patients); two-to-three studies were included in each meta-analysis. Less post-treatment upper incisor retroclination (<2) and no overbite; overjet; SNA; SNB; and lower incisor inclination differences were found between Herbst/Forsus and Class II elastics. No differences in maxilla; condyle; glenoid fossa; and most mandibular changes were found between Herbst and Class II elastics; except for a greater 1.5 mm increase in mandibular length and right mandibular ramus height (1.6 mm) with Herbst. Conclusions: Herbst and Class II elastics corrected the molar relationship; but Herbst moved the lower molars more mesially. Apart from an additional mandibular length increase; no other dental and anteroposterior skeletal difference was found. Forsus was more effective in molar correction; overjet reduction; and upper incisor control than Class II elastics. Trial registration number OSF: 10.17605/OSF.IO/8TK3R.

Indexed as

class II elasticsclass II malocclusionforsus fatigue resistance devicefunctional appliancesherbst appliancemeta-analysissystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36498570
PMCPMC9741176

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.