Table 3_Herbst and Twin Block appliances in Class II malocclusion management for children:

Seven randomized controlled trials with 548 participants were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis comparing Herbst and Twin Block functional appliances for managing Class II malocclusion in children. The analysis, conducted by Franz Tito Coronel-Zubiate, searched multiple databases up to January 30, 2025 and assessed evidence using Cochrane RoB 2.0 and GRADE methods. It found both appliances effective, with the Herbst appliance showing modest advantages in specific parameters like the mentolabial angle.

Use Cases

• Compare the skeletal effects of Herbst and Twin Block appliances based on the meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
• Evaluate dental outcome differences, such as molar relationship correction, based on the reported standardized mean differences.
• Assess soft tissue parameter changes from appliance use based on outcomes like the mentolabial angle.
• Inform clinical decision-making for Class II malocclusion treatment based on the synthesized evidence regarding appliance effectiveness and patient-specific factors.

Strengths

• Analysis is based on 7 randomized controlled trials, a key study design for establishing causal evidence.
• Includes data from 548 participants, providing a substantive sample for meta-analysis.
• Employs rigorous methodology including Cochrane RoB 2.0 and GRADE for assessing evidence quality.
• Systematic review protocol is publicly registered (PROSPERO CRD420251011083), enhancing transparency.

Limitations

• The dataset is a 676.0 KB DOCX document, which is a small text file containing the review manuscript rather than a primary data repository.
• Row count and column-level documentation for any underlying extracted data are unknown, limiting direct computational use.
• The description focuses on the review's conclusions; the raw data tables from the included studies are not directly accessible.

Provenance

Source

figshare, authored by Franz Tito Coronel-Zubiate.

Collection Method

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

Time Range

Literature search included studies with no date restrictions, current up to January 30, 2025.

Freshness

Last updated 2026-05-15 07:47:33; the literature search was current up to January 30, 2025.