Incremental or maximal mandibular advancement in the treatment of class II malocclusion through functional appliances: A systematic review with meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To systematically review the effects of functional appliances (FA) using incremental vs maximal mandibular advancement regarding cephalometric measurements in class II malocclusion individuals and to assess patient-centred-outcomes. Six electronic databases were searched without restrictions up to April 2020. We included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials using identical FA. Trials involving participants who used adjunct appliances, inter-maxillary elastics, who received surgical treatment or that recruited individuals with cleft lip/palate or craniofacial deformity/syndrome were excluded. Risks of bias assessments were performed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool-2 and ROBINS-I tools. Mean differences (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals were calculated from random-effects meta-analyses. The GRADE tool was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. Six studies were included. Low to very low certainty of evidence indicated that incremental mandibular advancement resulted in greater gains in mandibular length (MD = 0.89 [0.38, 1.34], P = .0005), anterior mandibular displacement (MD = 0.73 [0.40, 1.06], P < .0001) and SNB angle (MD = 0.44 [0.02, 0.85], P = .04). No significant differences were found for maxillary, dento-alveolar and upper airway outcomes between construction bite protocols (P > .05). Study design and appliance-related factors influenced the results of the subgroup analyses. Existing evidence is inadequate to assess patient-related response and long-term outcome could not be assessed. Currently, there are a heterogeneous number of studies with low quality and methodological issues can lead to biases that strongly limit an evidence-based conclusion. Weak evidence suggests gains in mandibular skeletal parameters in the short term using FA with incremental mandibular advancement. Randomized trials evaluating key topics such as patient-centred outcomes need to be conducted to guide clinical management. PROSPERO (CRD42019147436).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".