CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 191Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsCleft Lip and Palate ResearchCraniofacial Disorders and Treatments

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 87 of the 93 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Treatment effects of removable functional appliances in patients with Class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Koretsi, Vasiliki, Zymperdikas, Vasileios F., Papageorgiou, Spyridon N., Papadopoulos, Moschos A.·2015·The European Journal of Orthodontics
DOI 10.1093/ejo/cju071
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the treatment effects of removable functional appliances (RFAs) in treated versus untreated patients with Class II malocclusion by means of lateral cephalometric radiographs. SEARCH METHODS: Unrestricted electronic search of 18 databases and manual searches up to October 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Prospective randomized and non-randomized controlled trials reporting on cephalometric angular measurements of Class II patients treated with RFAs and their matched controls. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Skeletal, dental, and soft tissue changes were annualized and stratified to short- and long-term effects. Methodological limitations were evaluated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Downs and Black checklist. Mean differences (MDs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated from random-effects meta-analyses. Patient- or appliance-related subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed with mixed-effects models. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included (1031 patients; mean age: 10.6 years), with most of them originating from university clinics and reporting short-term effects (directly after the removal of RFAs). Treatment was associated with minimal reduction of SNA angle (11 studies, MD = -0.28 degree/year, 95% CI: -0.44 to -0.12 degree/year), minimal increase of SNB angle (11 studies, MD = 0.62 degree/year, 95% CI: 0.36-0.88 degree/year), and small decrease of ANB angle (10 studies, MD = -1.14 degree/year, 95% CI: -1.52 to -0.77 degree/year) compared to untreated Class II patients. RFAs caused significant dentoalveolar changes (predominantly retroclination of the upper incisors) and significant soft tissue changes. Skeletal changes were more pronounced with the Twin Block appliance. Various patient- or appliance-related factors influenced the results of the subgroup analyses, while the sensitivity analyses indicated robustness. Existing evidence was inadequate to assess the long-term effectiveness of RFAs. CONCLUSIONS: The short-term evidence indicates that RFAs are effective in improving Class II malocclusion, although their effects are mainly dentoalveolar, rather than skeletal.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ejo/cju071

Cites

87 of 87 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 93 references

6 of the 93 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. McNamara, 1981, Components of class II malocclusion in children 8–10 years of age, The Angle Orthodontist, 51, 177
  2. Pancherz, 1997, Cephalometric characteristics of Class II division 1 and Class II division 2 malocclusions: a comparative study in children, The Angle Orthodontist, 67, 111
  3. de Almeida, 2002, Treatment effects produced by Frankel appliance in patients with Class II, division 1 malocclusion, The Angle Orthodontist, 72, 418
  4. Ruf, 2001, Effective condylar growth and chin position in activator treatment: a cephalometric roentgenographic study, The Angle Orthodontist, 71, 4
  5. Giannelly, 1983, Mandibular growth, condylar position and Fränkel appliance therapy, The Angle Orthodontist, 53, 131
  6. Adams, 1940, Correction of errors in cephalometric roentgenograms, The Angle Orthodontist, 10, 3
  7. Rasool, 2010, Comparative evaluation between cervical vertebrae and hand-wrist maturation for assessment of skeletal maturity orthodontic patients, Pakistan Oral & Dental Journal, 30, 85
  8. Harmelink, 2010, Effects of neurolytic blocks (botulinum toxin type A and motor branch block) in patients with a Stiff Knee Gait: A systematic review. Master Thesis
  9. Morissette, 2011, Blinded versus unblended assessments of risk of bias in studies included in a systematic review, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 9, MR000025
  10. Andreoli, 2008, Avaliação cefalométrica da estabilidade do tratamento com o regulador de função Fränkel-2. Master Thesis

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Koretsi, V., Zymperdikas, V. F., Papageorgiou, S. N., & Papadopoulos, M. A.
Affiliations
  • University Hospital Regensburg (DE)
  • Hellenic Air Force (GR)
  • University of Bonn (DE)
  • Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (GR)
ORCID
Venue
The European Journal of Orthodontics
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2014-11-13
Volume
37
Issue
4
Pages
418-434
ISSN
  • 0141-5387 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2210
DOI
10.1093/ejo/cju071
OpenAlex
W4249036357
Cited by
191
References
93
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 7
FWCI
1.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Orthodontics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Orthodontics › Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Oral Surgery › Cleft Lip and Palate Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Craniofacial Disorders and Treatments
Keywords
removable functional appliances, Class II malocclusion, cephalometric changes, SNA angle, SNB angle, ANB angle, Twin Block appliance, dentoalveolar changes, skeletal changes, soft tissue changes, pediatric orthodontic treatment
MeSH terms
Cephalometry, Humans, Malocclusion, Angle Class II, Mandible, Maxilla, Orthodontic Appliances, Removable, Treatment Outcome, Orthodontic Appliances, Functional

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review