Table 13_Herbst and Twin Block appliances in Class II malocclusion management for children

Seven randomized controlled trials with 548 participants form the basis of this meta-analysis comparing two common orthodontic appliances. The review, authored by Franz Tito Coronel-Zubiate and registered with PROSPERO, searched multiple databases up to January 30, 2025. Results indicate both appliances are effective, with the Herbst appliance showing modest advantages in specific parameters like the mentolabial angle.

Use Cases

• Compare skeletal, dental, and soft tissue outcomes of Herbst and Twin Block appliances based on the systematic review findings.
• Inform clinical decision-making for Class II malocclusion treatment based on the reported standardized mean differences for specific parameters.
• Guide future research on orthodontic appliance efficacy based on the identified gaps and evidence certainty assessed via GRADE.

Strengths

• Analysis is based on 7 randomized controlled trials, a robust study design for clinical evidence.
• The meta-analysis calculated standardized mean differences with 95% confidence intervals for specific outcomes like the mentolabial angle.
• Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool, and evidence certainty was evaluated using the GRADE method.

Limitations

• The dataset is a 671.2 KB DOCX document; the underlying data tables or raw study data are not provided separately.
• Row count and column-level documentation are absent, limiting direct analysis of the primary data.
• The scope is limited to the specific research question of comparing two appliances; it is not a general orthodontic data collection.

Provenance

Source

figshare

Collection Method

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials sourced from PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE.

Time Range

Literature search conducted up to January 30, 2025.

Freshness

Last updated 2026-05-15 07:47:35