Orthodontic Treatment for Prominent Upper Front Teeth (Class II Malocclusion) in Children and Adolescents (Review)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents (Review) Batista KBSL, Thiruvenkatachari B, Harrison JE, O’Brien KD Batista KBSL, Thiruvenkatachari B, Harrison JE, O’Brien KD. Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD003452. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003452.pub4. www.cochranelibrary.com Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents (Review) Copyright © 2018 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. TABLE OF CONTENTS HEADER....................................... 1 ABSTRACT ...................................... 1 PLAINLANGUAGESUMMARY . 2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR THE MAIN COMPARISON . ..... 4 BACKGROUND .................................... 6 OBJECTIVES ..................................... 6 METHODS ...................................... 6 RESULTS....................................... 8 Figure1. ..................................... 10 Figure2. ..................................... 15 ADDITIONALSUMMARYOFFINDINGS . 19 DISCUSSION ..................................... 28 AUTHORS’CONCLUSIONS . 29 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . 29 REFERENCES ..................................... 30 CHARACTERISTICSOFSTUDIES . 39 DATAANDANALYSES. 81 Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Early orthodontic treatment: two-phase versus one-phase treatment, Outcome 1 Outcomes at the end of phase I: functional versus observation. ............. 84 Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Early orthodontic treatment: two-phase versus one-phase treatment, Outcome 2 Incidence of new incisal trauma during phase I treatment: functional versus observation. 85 Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Early orthodontic treatment: two-phase versus one-phase treatment, Outcome 3 Outcomes at the end of phase I: headgear versus observation. ............ 86 Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 Early orthodontic treatment: two-phase versus one-phase treatment, Outcome 4 Incidence of new incisal trauma during phase I treatment: headgear versus observation. 87 Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 Early orthodontic treatment: two-phase versus one-phase treatment, Outcome 5 Outcomes at the end of phase II: functional (2-phase) versus adolescent (1-phase) treatment. 88 Analysis 1.6. Comparison 1 Early orthodontic treatment: two-phase versus one-phase treatment, Outcome 6 Incidence of new incisal trauma by the end of phase II treatment: functional (2-phase) versus adolescent (1-phase) treatment. 89 Analysis 1.7. Comparison 1 Early orthodontic treatment: two-phase versus one-phase treatment, Outcome 7 Outcomes at the end of phase II: headgear (2-phase) versus adolescent (1-phase) treatment. 90 Analysis 1.8. Comparison 1 Early orthodontic treatment: two-phase versus one-phase treatment, Outcome 8 Incidence of new incisal trauma by the end of phase II treatment: headgear (2-phase) versus adolescent (1-phase) treatment. 91 Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Early orthodontic treatment: two-phase appliance 1 (headgear) versus appliance 2 (functional), Outcome 1 Outcomes at the end of phase I: headgear versus functional............... 92 Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Early orthodontic treatment: two-phase appliance 1 (headgear) versus appliance 2 (functional), Outcome 2 Incidence of new incisal trauma during phase I treatment: headgear versus functional. 93 Analysis 2.3. Comparison 2 Early orthodontic treatment: two-phase appliance 1 (headgear) versus appliance 2 (functional), Outcome 3 Outcomes at the end of phase II: headgear versus functional. ............. 94 Analysis 2.4. Comparison 2 Early orthodontic treatment: two-phase appliance 1 (headgear) versus appliance 2 (functional), Outcome 4 Incidence of new incisal trauma by the end of phase II treatment: headgear versus functional appliance. 95 Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Late orthodontic treatment: functional versus no treatment, Outcome 1 Final overjet. 96 Analysis 3.2. Comparison 3 Late orthodontic treatment: functional versus no treatment, Outcome 2 Final ANB. 97 Analysis 4.1. Comparison 4 Late orthodontic treatment: different types of appliances used for late treatment, Outcome 1 Twin Block versus other functional appliances (R-appliance, Bionator, Bite-Jumping appliance, Dynamax and Herbst)..................................... 98 Analysis 4.2. Comparison 4 Late orthodontic treatment: different types of appliances used for late treatment, Outcome 2 Twin Block conventional versus other Twin Block modifications. ............... 99 Analysis 4.3. Comparison 4 Late orthodontic treatment: different types of appliances used for late treatment, Outcome 3 Functional (Activator) versus prefabricated functional myobrace appliance (PFA). 99 Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents (Review) i Copyright © 2018 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Analysis 4.4. Comparison 4 Late orthodontic treatment: different types of appliances used for late treatment, Outcome 4 Functional (Activator) versus fixed functional (FORSUS FRD EZ). ............. 100 Analysis 4.5. Comparison 4 Late orthodontic treatment: different types of appliances used for late treatment, Outcome 5 Fixed functional (FORSUS FRD) versus fixed functional with mini-implants (FMI). 101 Analysis 4.6. Comparison 4 Late orthodontic treatment: different types of appliances used for late treatment, Outcome 6 Fixed functional (FORSUS FRD) versus fixed functional with mini-implants (FMI) - patient satisfaction with results. .................................... 102 Analysis 4.7. Comparison 4 Late orthodontic treatment: different types of appliances used for late treatment, Outcome 7 R-applianceversusAIBP. 102 Analysis 4.8. Comparison 4 Late orthodontic treatment: different types of appliances used for late treatment, Outcome 8 Removable functional appliance versus fixed functional appliance................. 103 Analysis 4.9. Comparison 4 Late orthodontic treatment: different types of appliances used for late treatment, Outcome 9 FORSUS versus intermaxillary elastics. ........ 104 Analysis 4.10. Comparison 4 Late orthodontic treatment: different types of appliances used for late treatment, Outcome 10 FMA stepwise (SWG) versus FMA single step (SSG). ....... 105 Analysis 4.11. Comparison 4 Late orthodontic treatment: different types of appliances used for late treatment, Outcome 11 Harvold Activator versus Frankel function regulator. .............. 106 APPENDICES ..................................... 106 WHAT’SNEW..................................... 109 HISTORY....................................... 110 CONTRIBUTIONSOFAUTHORS . 110 DECLARATIONSOFINTEREST . 111 SOURCESOFSUPPORT . 111 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PROTOCOL AND REVIEW . .... 111 INDEXTERMS .................................... 112 Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents (Review) ii Copyright © 2018 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [Intervention Review] Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents Klaus BSL Batista1, Badri Thiruvenkatachari2, Jayne E Harrison3, Kevin D O’Brien4 1Department of Preventive and Public Dentistry, Rio de Janeiro State University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 2School of Dentistry, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 3Orthodontic Department, Liverpool University Dental Hospital, Liverpool, UK. 4Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK Contact address: Klaus BSL Batista, Department of Preventive and Public Dentistry, Rio de Janeiro State University, Boulevard 28 de Setembro, 157, Vila Isabel, Rio de Janeiro, CEP: 20551-030, Brazil. [email protected]. Editorial group: Cochrane Oral Health Group. Publication status and date: New search for studies and content updated (conclusions changed), published in Issue 3, 2018. Citation: Batista KBSL, Thiruvenkatachari B, Harrison JE, O’Brien KD. Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD003452. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003452.pub4. Copyright © 2018 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. ABSTRACT Background Prominent upper front teeth are a common problem affecting about a quarter of 12-year-old children in the UK. The condition develops when permanent teeth erupt. These teeth are more likely to be injured and their appearance can cause significant distress. Children are often referred to an orthodontist for treatment with dental braces to reduce the prominence of their teeth. If a child is referred at a young age, the orthodontist is faced with the dilemma of whether to treat the patient early or to wait and provide treatment in adolescence. Objectives To assess the effects of orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth initiated when children are seven to 11 years old (’early treatment’ in two phases) compared to in adolescence at around 12 to 16 years old (’late treatment’ in one phase); to assess the effects of late treatment compared to no treatment; and to assess the effects of different types of orthodontic braces. Search methods Cochrane Oral Health’s Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health’s