Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37258750›Full record

SynthesisProgress in orthodontics2023

Long-term effectiveness of non-surgical open-bite treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Maria-Zoi Theodoridou, Athanasia-Eirini Zarkadi, Vasileios F Zymperdikas, Moschos A Papadopoulos

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Progress in orthodontics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Tongue Behavior in Anterior Open Bite-A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  5. [Postreatment stability of open bite in patients with permanent dentition. review].Revista cientifica odontologica (Universidad Cientifica del Sur)
    Review
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

4 authors.

Maria-Zoi TheodoridouDepartment of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, European University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Athanasia-Eirini ZarkadiDepartment of Paediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Scholl of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Vasileios F ZymperdikasDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, School of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece. vassiliszymperdikas@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4283-5933
Moschos A PapadopoulosDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, School of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7630-7258

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe etiology of open bite is complex, involving various genetic or environmental factors. Several treatment alternatives have been suggested for the correction of open bite, yet their long-term effectiveness remains controversial.

objectiveTo assess the long-term effectiveness of open-bite treatment in treated with non-surgical approaches versus untreated patients, through lateral cephalometric radiographs. SEARCH

methodsUnrestricted search of 16 electronic databases and manual searches up to November 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or non-randomized controlled trials reporting on the long-term effects of open-bite treatment through angular lateral cephalometric variables. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Only angular variables on lateral cephalometric radiographs were considered as primary outcomes. For each outcome, the mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the random-effects model to consider existing heterogeneity. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (R.o.B. 2.0) and the risk-of-bias tool for non-randomized studies for interventions (ROBINS-I) were utilized for the randomized and non-randomized trials, respectively.

resultsFrom the initially identified 26,527 hits, only 6 studies (1 randomized and 5 retrospective controlled trials) were finally included in this systematic review reporting on 244 open-bite individuals (134 patients and 110 untreated controls), while five of them were included in the meta-analyses, assessing either the interval ranging from treatment start to post-retention (T3-T1) or from end of treatment to post-retention period (T3-T2). Regarding the vertical plane, for the T3-T2 interval, no significant differences were found for the assessed skeletal measurements, indicating a relative stability of the treatment results. Similarly, with regard to the T3-T1 interval, no significant differences could be identified for the examined skeletal variables, implying that the produced effects are rather minimal and that the correction of the open bite was performed mainly through dentoalveolar rather than skeletal changes. Further, no significant changes could be identified regarding the inclination of the upper and lower incisors. Only the nasolabial angle was significantly reduced in the treated patients in the long term.

conclusionsAccording to existing evidence, the influence of non-surgical treatment of open bite on the skeletal tissues and the inclination of the incisors is rather minimal in the long term, while only the nasolabial angle was significantly reduced.

Indexed as

Open BiteCephalometryHumansIncisorRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID37258750
PMCPMC10232685

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.