SynthesisClinical and experimental dental research2024
Skeletal and Dental Effects of Forsus Fatigue Resistance Device Versus Twin Block Appliance for Class II Malocclusion Treatment in Growing Patients: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study systematically searched the literature and assessed the available evidence to compare the efficacy of Forsus Fatigue Resistance Device (FRD) versus Twin Block Appliance (TBA) in treating class II malocclusion. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe search for published literature was published up to May 28, 2024. The databases were included in the search: MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Oral Trials Register, Tripe, Web of Science, and Scopus. Additionally, unpublished literature was searched on ClinicalTrials.gov, the National Research Register, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. All eligible studies were carefully reviewed and two reviewers independently extracted data. In cases of disagreement, an arbiter was consulted for resolution.
resultsTwo randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five non-RCTs were included in this review. The total number of patients included in the studies examining SNA, SNB, and ANB was 254. The studies also looked at the variables Go-Gn, L1-ML, and U1-SN, with 279, 205, and 277 patients included for each variable, respectively. According to the evidence reported, TBA showed greater skeletal effects in terms of mandibular length and advancement. The pooled estimate revealed a statistically significant 1.3° increase in the SNB, and a decrease of -1.34° in the ANB angles for patients treated with TBA compared with those treated with FRD, with no statistically significant differences in the SNA angle. Most studies had a moderate risk of bias, while only two studies had a high risk of bias.
conclusionFRD has been proven to be an effective treatment device for correcting ANB and restricting SNA angle, similar to TBA. However, TBA appears to offer better mandibular length and SNB outcomes.
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.