Abstract
Objective: To investigate the clinical effect of the Myobrace appliance and traditional functional appliances in treating Class II malocclusions.
Methods: Six databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, CNKI, and Embase) were searched to collect and compare articles regarding the effect of the Myobrace appliance and traditional functional appliances for treating Class II malocclusions in children. The literature in both the English and Chinese languages was systematically searched. Randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, and retrospective studies were included. A meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan5.4.1 software.
Results: A total of 12 trials involving 577 patients were included in the quantitative synthesis analysis. The results indicated that, compared to a Twin-block group, the Myobrace group showed significantly smaller reductions in the SNA angle, smaller increases in Ar-Go and Go-Me (mm), and smaller decreases in overbite and overjet (mm) (p < 0.05 for all). Additionally, compared to an Activator group, the Myobrace group demonstrated a significantly smaller increase in the SNB angle (p < 0.05).
Conclusions: Moderate evidence suggests that the Myobrace appliance and traditional functional appliances were effective in correcting a Class II malocclusion, but the Twin-block appliance was more effective than the Myobrace appliance in inhibiting maxillary growth and reducing overjet and overbite, while the Activator was more effective in promoting mandibular growth.