OBJECTIVE: Although much has been investigated about the effects of cervical headgear, there remains some controversy. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review is to disclose the actual effects of the cervical headgear appliance, based on articles of relevant quality. METHODS: A literature review was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane databases. Inclusion criteria consisted of human studies written in English; published between 1970 and 2014; in which only the cervical headgear was used to correct Class II malocclusion; prospective or retrospective; with a clear description of cervical headgear effects; with a sample size of at least 15 individuals. No comparative studies, clinical cases or cases with dental extractions were included and the sample should be homogeneous. RESULTS: Initially, 267 articles were found. A total of 42 articles were selected by title and had their abstracts read. Finally, 12 articles were classified as with high quality and were used in this systematic review. CONCLUSIONS: The cervical headgear appliance proved efficient to correct Class II, Division 1 malocclusion. Its effects consisted in correction of the maxillomandibular relationship by restriction of maxillary anterior displacement; distalization and extrusion of maxillary molars; and slight maxillary expansion.

Summary Background/Objective To assess the mean maxillary molar distalization time with non-compliance intraoral distalizing appliances. Search methods and selection criteria Database search included PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, Lilacs, and a partial grey literature through Google Scholar and OpenGrey. The search was performed until May 2017 and updated on February 2019, without limitations regarding publication year or language. Controlled clinical trials (randomized and non-randomized prospective studies) reporting duration of maxillary molar distalization of Class II patients treated with intraoral distalizers were included. Data collection and analysis For the trials’ quality assessment, the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Cochrane Collaboration’s ROBINS-I tool were used for the randomized controlled trials and non-randomized prospective studies, respectively. Database research, risk of bias (RoB) assessment, and extraction of data were performed by two independent investigators, with inclusion of a third reviewer, if disagreements emerged. Data was combined through a random-effects meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses regarding side of force application, type of anchorage, amount of molar distalization, and sensitivity analysis comparing study designs were also performed. Quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE and SORT approaches. Results Nine studies were included in the qualitative analysis; however, a meta-analysis was performed with only four studies, due to the presence of high RoB in the other studies. The random-effects meta-analysis assumes that the mean distalization time with distalizers is 8.34 months (95% confidence interval: 6.10, 10.58). Another meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between distalization time and the type of anchorage (conventional or skeletal), resulting in no significant difference. Both meta-analyses presented low-quality evidence. Limitations The major limitation of this meta-analysis is the fact that distalization time can be affected by a great range of factors. Conclusions and implications Correction of a half-to-full cusp Class II molar relationship with intraoral distalizers can be achieved in 8.34 months, and this distalization time may not be affected by the kind of anchorage used. Registration The protocol for this systematic review was based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0 and was registered at PROSPERO database (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017068737). This systematic review is reported according to the PRISMA statement.

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the cephalometric changes in Class II division 1 malocclusion patients treated with Jones Jig appliance or with maxillary first premolar extractions. Methods: The sample consisted of 88 lateral cephalograms of 44 patients, divided into two groups. Group 1 consisted of 21 patients treated with Jones Jig appliance, with a mean initial age of 12.88 ± 1.23 years and final mean age of 17.18 ± 1.37 years, and a mean treatment time of 4.29 years. Group 2 comprised 23 patients treated with maxillary first premolar extractions, with a mean initial age of 13.59 ± 1.91 years and mean final age of 16.39 ± 1.97 years, and a mean treatment time of 2.8 years. Intergroup treatment changes were compared with t and Mann-Whitney tests. Results: Class II correction in G2 (maxillary first premolar extractions) presented significantly greater maxillary retrusion, reduction of anteroposterior apical base discrepancy, smaller increase in the lower anterior face height and significantly greater overjet reduction than G1 (Jones Jig). Conclusions: Treatment with maxillary first premolar extractions produced greater overjet reduction, but the two treatment protocols produced similar changes in the soft tissue profile.

Objective: This study aimed to compare cephalometric changes of Class II malocclusion patients treated with Jasper Jumper and Forsus, associated with fixed appliances. Methods:The sample consisted of 62 individuals divided into 3 groups: group 1 included 22 subjects with a mean initial age of 12.39 years, treated with Jasper Jumper associated with fixed appliances for a mean period of 2.43 years; group 2 included 19 subjects with a mean initial age of 12.43 years, treated with Forsus associated with fixed appliances for a mean period of 3.54 years; and group 3 included 22 Class II malocclusion untreated subjects at a mean age of 12.14 years, followed for a mean period of 1.78 years.Intergroup comparison was performed with one-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey test.Results: Both treated groups had similar dentoskeletal changes: restrictive effect on the maxilla; clockwise rotation of the occlusal plane; mild increase in lower anterior facial height; limitation on the vertical development of the maxillary molars; labial tipping and intrusion of the mandibular incisors; extrusion of mandibular molars; improvements of the maxillomandibular relationship, overjet, overbite, molar relationship; and retrusion of the upper lip. The mandibular incisors exhibited greater protrusion in group 1 compared to the other groups. In addition, group 2 presented mild protrusion of the lower lip, and groups 1 and 3 showed mild retrusion. Conclusion:The Jasper Jumper and Forsus appliances were effective and showed similar changes in the treatment of Class II malocclusion.

No abstract

No abstract