Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37866376›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of orthodontics2024

Vertical effects of cervical headgear in growing patients with Class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Umar Hussain, Ahsan Memood Shah, Fazli Rabi, Alessandra Campobasso, Spyridon N Papageorgiou

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of orthodontics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Umar HussainDepartment of Orthodontics, Saidu College of Dentistry, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Swat, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0001-8100-561X
Ahsan Memood ShahDepartment Orthodontics, Khyber College of Dentistry, Peshawar, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0002-4818-0747
Fazli RabiDepartment of Orthodontics, Saidu College of Dentistry, Swat, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.ORCID 0009-0001-2101-0780
Alessandra CampobassoDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, Via Rovelli 50, 71122 Foggia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4726-8816
Spyridon N PapageorgiouClinic of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 11, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-1968-3326
Saidu Teaching Hospital · PKKhyber Medical College · PKUniversity of Foggia · ITUniversity of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCervical headgear (cHG) has been shown to be effective in Class II correction both with dental and orthopaedic effects but has traditionally been associated with vertical adverse effects in terms of posterior mandibular rotation.

objectiveTo assess the treatment effects of cHG treatment in the vertical dimension. SEARCH

methodsUnrestricted literature search of five databases up to May 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized/non-randomized clinical studies comparing cHG to untreated controls, high-pull headgear (hp-HG), cHG adjuncts, or other Class II treatment alternatives (functional appliances or distalisers). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: After duplicate study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment according to Cochrane, random-effects meta-analyses of mean differences (MD)/standardized mean diffences (SMD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed, followed by meta-regressions, sensitivity analyses, and assessment of certainty on existed evidence.

resultsTwo randomized/16 non-randomized studies (12 retrospective/4 prospective) involving 1094 patients (mean age 10.9 years and 46% male) were included. Compared to natural growth, cHG treatment was not associated on average with increases in mandibular (eight studies; SMD 0.22; 95% CI -0.06, 0.49; P = 0.11) or maxillary plane angle (seven studies; SMD 0.81; 95% CI -0.34, 1.95; P=0.14). Observed changes translate to MDs of 0.48° (95% CI -0.13, 1.07°) and 1.22° (95% CI -0.51, 2.94°) in the SN-ML and SN-NL angles, respectively. No significant differences were seen in y-axis, facial axis angle, or posterior face height (P > 0.05). Similarly, no significant differences were found between cHG treatment and (i) addition of a lower utility arch, (ii) hp-HG treatment, and (iii) removable functional appliance treatment (P > 0.05 for all). Meta-regressions of patient age, sex, or duration and sensitivity analyses showed relative robustness, while our confidence in these estimates was low to very low due to the risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision.

conclusionscHG on average is not consistently associated with posterior rotation of the jaws or a consistent increase in vertical facial dimensions among Class II patients. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration (CRD42022374603).

Indexed as

Malocclusion, Angle Class IIOrthodontics, CorrectiveCephalometryChildExtraoral Traction AppliancesFemaleHumansMaleMaxillaProspective StudiesRetrospective Studiescervical pull headgearClass II malocclusionclinical trialsmeta-analysisorthodonticssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37866376
PMCPMC10783157
OpenAlexW4387857008

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.