SynthesisProgress in orthodontics2025
Evaluation of different methods of correcting deep bite in adult and adolescent patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Progress in orthodontics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated classification of sagittal, vertical, and transverse malocclusions from 3D intraoral scans via a multi-head CNN framework.Odontology · 2026Article
- Article
- Review
- Periodontally accelerated osteogenic orthodontics combined with i-PRF for the treatment of gingival recession: a case report with 5-year follow-up.BMC oral health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA deep bite is a prevalent malocclusion, and its treatment remains one of the most debated topics in orthodontics due to the variety of underlying causes and the diverse orthodontic approaches employed to address it.
objectiveThis systematic review aimed to assess the evidence on the most effective approach for treating deep bites in adult and adolescent patients. SEARCH
methodsA thorough search was performed up to January 2025 among these databases: PubMed SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this review on adult and adolescent patients with deep bite malocclusion who underwent any orthodontic treatment to correct this malocclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The Cochrane tool (ROB2) was employed to assess the risk of bias, while the GRADE approach was used to evaluate the quality of evidence.
resultsEight RCTs were included in this review. Five of the eight studies were suitable for qualitatively synthesizing the data. The meta-analysis showed that the miniscrew-supported intrusion (MSI) caused a statistically significant amount of overbite reduction (mean difference (MD) = - 0.36 mm), upper incisor intrusion (MD = - 0.77 mm), and upper incisor proclination (MD = 0.63
conclusionLow-quality evidence suggests that MSI is superior to CIA for reducing overbite, and causing more upper incisor proclination. Moderate -quality evidence indicates that MSI is superior to CIA for intruding the upper incisors. Moderate-quality evidence indicates that the ABT and the RCS effectively reduce overbite. Low-quality evidence suggests that the MSI and the UA cause more overbite reduction and upper incisor intrusion than the J-Hook headgear, and the MSI causes more upper incisor intrusion than the UA. REGISTRATION: The protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42025633739) during the first stages of the review.
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.