ReviewCureus2024
Evaluation of the Best Method for Orthodontic Correction of Skeletal Deep Bites in Growing Patients: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Anterior intrusion mechanics for adult deep bite correction: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.BMC oral health · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluation of different methods of correcting deep bite in adult and adolescent patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Progress in orthodontics · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Cranial Base Morphology and Mandibular Growth in Skeletal Deep Bite: A Longitudinal Study in Prepubertal Children.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review aimed to evaluate the currently available evidence regarding the best method of correcting deep bites in growing patients. In September 2023, a search was conducted electronically across the following databases: PubMed®, Web of Science™, Scopus®, Embase®, Google™ Scholar, and Cochrane Library. In this systematic review, randomized control trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), and cohort studies of growing patients with deep bite malocclusion who received treatment with the primary objective of treating the deep bite were included. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using two different tools; one tool was applied for RCTs and the other one for the CCTs and cohort studies. One RCT, one CCT, and one cohort study were included (85 patients). The flat fixed acrylic bite plane was superior in terms of duration of treatment when compared to the inclined fixed acrylic bite plane and the utility arch with posterior intermaxillary elastics. Limited evidence indicates that the inclined fixed acrylic bite plane causes a significant increase in the lower incisor inclination and a significant increase in the angle between the mandible and the anterior cranial base (SNB). However, limited evidence indicates that the utility arch with posterior intermaxillary elastics causes a significant decrease in the angle between the maxilla and the anterior cranial base (SNA). Regarding the vertical skeletal changes, it was found that the three methods were comparable; in each case, the vertical dimension of the face increased because of a significant increase in the lower first molar height. There is a need for further studies to strengthen the evidence of the treatment efficacy of the employed methods, with more RCTs to be conducted in this regard.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.