Search

This Systematic Review (SR) aims to assess the quality of SRs and Meta-Analyses (MAs) on functional orthopaedic treatment of Class II malocclusion and to summarise and rate the reported effects. Electronic and manual searches were conducted until June 2014. SRs and MAs focusing on the effects of functional orthopaedic treatment of Class II malocclusion in growing patients were included. The methodological quality of the included papers was assessed using the AMSTAR (Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews). The design of the primary studies included in each SR was assessed with Level of Research Design scoring. The evidence of the main outcomes was summarised and rated according to a scale of statements. 14 SRs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The appliances evaluated were as follows: Activator (2 studies), Twin Block (4 studies), headgear (3 studies), Herbst (2 studies), Jasper Jumper (1 study), Bionator (1 study) and Fränkel-2 (1 study). Four studies reviewed several functional appliances, as a group. The mean AMSTAR score was 6 (ranged 2-10). Six SRs included only controlled clinical trials (CCTs), three SRs included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs), four SRs included both CCTs and RCTs and one SR included also expert opinions. There was some evidence of reduction of the overjet, with different appliances except from headgear; there was some evidence of small maxillary growth restrain with Twin Block and headgear; there was some evidence of elongation of mandibular length, but the clinical relevance of this results is still questionable; there was insufficient evidence to determine an effect on soft tissues.

To summarise the skeletal, dental and soft tissue effects of orthopaedic treatment on growing skeletal class III patients compared with a concurrent untreated similar control group and to evaluate whether the design of the primary studies may affect the results. A literature search was performed up to the end of February 2016. No restrictions were applied concerning language and appliances. Once the quality score was assessed, a meta-analysis was performed for the appliances used in more than three studies. A moderator analysis for study design was performed. The level of evidence was evaluated by means of the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. The search resulted in 21 papers. The quality of most of the studies was medium. Each study reported skeletal sagittal improvement and overjet correction. Fourteen studies reported a significant increase in lower facial height. Follow-up data showed slight relapses in about 15% of patients. Meta-analyses were performed for the facemask and chin cup. The two appliances were efficient for correcting the sagittal discrepancy, increasing the divergence. In the analysis for study design, the retrospective studies showed a more efficient appliance than RCTs for 6 of 13 variables. The level of evidence was between very low and moderate. There is very low to low evidence that orthopaedic treatment is effective in the correction of Class III skeletal discrepancies and moderate evidence for the correction of the overjet. A common side effect is mandibular clockwise rotation in older subjects.

The aim was to assess the quality and to summarise the findings of the Systematic Reviews (SRs) and Meta-Analyses (MAs) on the dental and skeletal effects of maxillary expansion. Electronic and manual searches have been independently conducted by two investigators, up to February 2015. SRs and MAs on the dentoalveolar and skeletal effects of fixed expanders were included. The methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews). The design of the primary studies included in each SR/MA was assessed with the LRD (Level of Research Design scoring). The evidence for each outcome was rated applying a pre-determined scale. Twelve SRs/MAs were included. The AMSTAR scores ranged from 4 to 10. Two SRs/MAs included only RCTs. The current findings from SRs/MAs support with high evidence a significant increase in the short-term of maxillary dentoalveolar transversal dimensions after Rapid Maxillary Expansion (RME). The same effect is reported with moderate evidence after Slow Maxillary Expansion (SME). However, there is moderate evidence of a non-significant difference between the two expansion modalities concerning the short-term dentoalveolar effects. With both RME and SME, significant increase of skeletal transversal dimension in the short-term is reported, and the skeletal expansion is always smaller than the dentoalveolar. Even though dental relapse to some extent is present, long-term results of the dentoalveolar effects show an increase of the transversal dimension, supported by moderate evidence for RME and low evidence for SME. Skeletal long-term effects are reported only with RME, supported by very low evidence.