Effects of facemasks versus intraoral appliances in treating maxillary deficiency in growing patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Class III malocclusion is one the most challenging types of orthodontic problems. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the dentoskeletal effects of facemasks and intraoral appliances in treating class III maxillary deficiency in growing patients through a systematic review of the available literature. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Electronic and manual searches were performed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (OVID), and Scopus to find all the relevant studies published by January 2018. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting 5-12-year-old patients who received maxillary protraction treatment with any type of facemask and comparing the facemasks with any type of intraoral appliance were included. The primary outcome measure was changes in the A point-nasion-B point angle (ANB), and the secondary outcomes included changes in the overjet, upper-1 (U1) inclination, the mandibular plane angle, and treatment time. The meta-analysis was carried out using the inverse variance-weighted random effects model. RESULTS: Out of 1,629 articles found in the initial search, 5 studies met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed no differences in the duration of treatment or in any of the cephalometric variables, with the exception of the overjet. CONCLUSIONS: It seems that intraoral appliances and facemasks are similar in terms of dentoskeletal effects in the treatment of class III malocclusion as well as treatment duration. However, due to a lack of a sufficient number of high-quality studies, these results should be viewed with caution. Further high-quality, long-term studies are recommended.