WITHDRAWN: Treatments for adults with prominent lower front teeth.

BACKGROUND: Prominent lower front teeth may be associated with a large or prognathic lower jaw (mandible) or a small or retrusive upper jaw (maxilla). Edward Angle, who may be considered the father of modern orthodontics, classified the malocclusion in this situation as Class III. The individual is described as having a negative or reverse overjet as the lower front teeth are more prominent than the upper front teeth. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate different treatments of Angle Class III malocclusion in adults. SEARCH METHODS: The following databases were searched: Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 22 March 2012); CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 1); MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 22 March 2012); EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 22 March 2012); LILACs (1982 to 22 March 2012); BBO (1986 to 22 March 2012); and SciELO (1997 to 22 March 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials of treatments for adults with an Angle Class III malocclusion were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed the eligibility of the identified reports. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. The mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for continuous data. MAIN RESULTS: Two randomized controlled trials were included in this review. There are different types of surgery for this type of malocclusion but only trials of mandible reduction surgery were identified. One trial compared intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy (IVRO) with sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO) and the other trial compared vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) with and without osteosynthesis. Neither trial found any difference between the two treatments. The trials did not provide adequate data for assessing effectiveness of the techniques described. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence from the two included trials, to conclude that one procedure is better or worse than another. The included trials compared different interventions and were at high risk of bias and therefore no implications for practice can be given. Further high quality randomized controlled trials with long term follow-up are required.

Oral appliances and functional orthopaedic appliances for obstructive sleep apnoea in children.

BACKGROUND: Apnoea is a breathing disorder marked by the absence of airflow at the nose or mouth. In children, risk factors include adenotonsillar hypertrophy, obesity, neuromuscular disorders and craniofacial anomalies. The most common treatment for obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS) in childhood is adeno-tonsillectomy. This approach is limited by its surgical risks, mostly in children with comorbidities and, in some patients, by recurrence that can be associated with craniofacial problems. Oral appliances and functional orthopaedic appliances have been used for patients who have OSAS and craniofacial anomalies because they hold the lower jaw (mandible) forwards which potentially enlarges the upper airway and increases the upper airspace, improving the respiratory function. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of oral appliances or functional orthopaedic appliances for obstructive sleep apnoea in children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 7 April 2016); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 3) in the Cochrane Library (searched 7 April 2016); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 7 April 2016); Embase Ovid (1980 to 7 April 2016); LILACS BIREME (from 1982 to 7 April 2016); BBO BIREME (from 1986 to 7 April 2016) and SciELO Web of Science (from 1997 to 7 April 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials on 7 April 2016. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing all types of oral and functional orthopaedic appliances with placebo or no treatment, in children 15 years old or younger. PRIMARY OUTCOME: reduction of apnoea to less than one episode per hour. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: dental and skeletal relationship, sleep parameters improvement, cognitive and phonoaudiological function, behavioural problems, quality of life, side effects (tolerability) and economic evaluation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened studies and extracted data independently. Authors were contacted for additional information. We calculated risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals for all important dichotomous outcomes. We assessed the quality of the evidence of included studies using GRADEpro software. MAIN RESULTS: The initial search identified 686 trials. Only one trial, reporting the results from a total of 23 children and comparing an oral appliance to no treatment, was suitable for inclusion in the review. The trial assessed apnoea-hypopnoea, daytime symptoms (sleepiness, irritability, tiredness, school problems, morning headache, thirstiness in the morning, oral breathing and nasal stuffiness) and night-time symptoms (habitual snoring, restless sleep and nightmares measured by questionnaire). Results were inconsistent across outcomes measures and time points. The evidence was considered very low quality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of oral appliances and functional orthopaedic appliances for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea in children. Oral appliances or functional orthopaedic appliances may be considered in specified cases as an auxiliary in the treatment of children who have craniofacial anomalies which are risk factors for apnoea.

Orthodontic and orthopaedic treatment for anterior open bite in children.

BACKGROUND: Anterior open bite occurs when there is a lack of vertical overlap of the upper and lower incisors. The aetiology is multifactorial including: oral habits, unfavourable growth patterns, enlarged lymphatic tissue with mouth breathing. Several treatments have been proposed to correct this malocclusion, but interventions are not supported by strong scientific evidence. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate orthodontic and orthopaedic treatments to correct anterior open bite in children. SEARCH METHODS: The following databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 14 February 2014); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)(The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 1); MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 14 February 2014); EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 14 February 2014); LILACS via BIREME Virtual Health Library (1982 to 14 February 2014); BBO via BIREME Virtual Health Library (1980 to 14 February 2014); and SciELO (1997 to 14 February 2014). We searched for ongoing trials via ClinicalTrials.gov (to 14 February 2014). Chinese journals were handsearched and the bibliographies of papers were retrieved. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of orthodontic or orthopaedic treatments or both to correct anterior open bite in children. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of all reports identified. Risk ratios (RRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for dichotomous data. The continuous data were expressed as described by the author. MAIN RESULTS: Three randomised controlled trials were included comparing: effects of Frankel's function regulator-4 (FR-4) with lip-seal training versus no treatment; repelling-magnet splints versus bite-blocks; and palatal crib associated with high-pull chincup versus no treatment.The study comparing repelling-magnet splints versus bite-blocks could not be analysed because the authors interrupted the treatment earlier than planned due to side effects in four of ten patients.FR-4 associated with lip-seal training (RR = 0.02 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.38)) and removable palatal crib associated with high-pull chincup (RR = 0.23 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.48)) were able to correct anterior open bite.No study described: randomisation process, sample size calculation, there was not blinding in the cephalometric analysis and the two studies evaluated two interventions at the same time. These results should be therefore viewed with caution. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is weak evidence that the interventions FR-4 with lip-seal training and palatal crib associated with high-pull chincup are able to correct anterior open bite. Given that the trials included have potential bias, these results must be viewed with caution. Recommendations for clinical practice cannot be made based only on the results of these trials. More randomised controlled trials are needed to elucidate the interventions for treating anterior open bite.

Treatments for adults with prominent lower front teeth.

BACKGROUND: Prominent lower front teeth may be associated with a large or prognathic lower jaw (mandible) or a small or retrusive upper jaw (maxilla). Edward Angle, who may be considered the father of modern orthodontics, classified the malocclusion in this situation as Class III. The individual is described as having a negative or reverse overjet as the lower front teeth are more prominent than the upper front teeth. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate different treatments of Angle Class III malocclusion in adults. SEARCH METHODS: The following databases were searched: Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 22 March 2012); CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 1); MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 22 March 2012); EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 22 March 2012); LILACs (1982 to 22 March 2012); BBO (1986 to 22 March 2012); and SciELO (1997 to 22 March 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials of treatments for adults with an Angle Class III malocclusion were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed the eligibility of the identified reports. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. The mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for continuous data. MAIN RESULTS: Two randomized controlled trials were included in this review. There are different types of surgery for this type of malocclusion but only trials of mandible reduction surgery were identified. One trial compared intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy (IVRO) with sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO) and the other trial compared vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) with and without osteosynthesis. Neither trial found any difference between the two treatments. The trials did not provide adequate data for assessing effectiveness of the techniques described. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence from the two included trials, to conclude that one procedure is better or worse than another. The included trials compared different interventions and were at high risk of bias and therefore no implications for practice can be given. Further high quality randomized controlled trials with long term follow-up are required.