Precision wings treating skeletal class II in growing patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Skeletal Class II malocclusion, often associated with mandibular deficiency, is commonly treated with functional appliances. Precision Wings are a functional appliance that provides an alternative approach by combining mandibular advancement with dental alignment. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of Precision Wings in treating skeletal Class II malocclusion in growing patients. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies assessing the correction of skeletal Class II malocclusion in growing patients treated with Precision Wings were selected according to the PICOS strategy. The PRISMA guidelines were followed. INFORMATION SOURCES: Unrestricted electronic searches were conducted across seven databases up to February 2025. RISK OF BIAS AND SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: The ROBINS-I tool was used to assess the risk of bias (RoB) in non-randomized studies. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed, and the certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Seven studies were included, and data were extracted. Mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. The findings suggest that Precision Wings may be effective in treating skeletal Class II malocclusion in growing patients through both dental and skeletal changes. Regarding skeletal effects, sagittal changes were limited to the mandible and were of small magnitude, with a reduction in ANB° (MD = -0.81; 95% CI: -1.04 to -0.58; p < 0.001) occurring exclusively due to an increase in SNB° (MD = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.98; p = 0.01), while no significant changes were observed in SNA° (MD = -0.02; 95% CI: -0.42 to 0.38; p = 0.91). The included studies did not report significant vertical effects. Meta-analyses comparing Precision Wings with other functional appliances were not feasible due to the small number of studies evaluating each comparison and the substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity across the included studies. CONCLUSION: Although the available scientific evidence on this topic is limited, treatment with Precision Wings appears to offer minimal clinical improvement in mandibular growth for the correction of skeletal Class II malocclusion. To obtain more conclusive findings, future research should prioritize well-structured randomized clinical trials with standardized treatment protocols, extended follow-ups, and consistent cephalometric assessment methods.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".