Table 5 Additional included study characteristics

DeShields 1969 [[32]]

PA

✓

✓

No

All class II division 1 malocclusion

Edgewise appliance

Headgear (HP, M, L) or class II elastics

RR assessed using PA

AP and vertical root movement assessed using Ceph

Compared to similar untreated pts

Hollender et al. [[33]]

PA

✓

✓

Yes

All class II division 1 malocclusion

Upper 14/24

Edgewise appliance

RR assessed using PA

Eisel et al. [[34]]

PA

✓

✓

Yes 64%

48% Edgewise

No 36%

9% Only functional

43% Combined

Reukers et al. [[35]]

PA

✓

✓

Yes and no

Class II malocclusion (divisions 1, 2, and subdivisions)

If extractions were done could be 2, 3, or 4 premolars extracted

Edgewise vs. straight wire

Edgewise - sliding

Straight wire - loops

Class II elastics

0.022-in. Standard edgewise slot

0.018-in. Straight wire edgewise slot

Roth prescription

Not clear how many cases were treated with extractions/non-extraction

RR assessed using PA

Taner et al. [[36]]

Ceph

✘

✘

Yes

Class II division 1 malocclusion

Four 1st premolar

0.018-in. Edgewise slot

RR, AP, and vertical root movement assessed using Ceph

OJ corrected with controlled tipping of upper incisors

Mavragani et al. [[40]]

PA

✓

✓

Yes

Class II division I malocclusion

Mavragani et al. [[37]]

At least 14/24 or upper bicuspid with lower 4s or upper bicuspid with lower 5s

0.018-in. Standard or straight wire edgewise slot

Edgewise vs. straight wire

RR assessed using PA

Compared to similar untreated pts

Liou and Chang [[38]]

PA

✓

✓

Yes

Class II division I malocclusion

Mx 14/24

Edgewise appliance

En-masse Mx anterior retraction and FFA vs. FFA

Anterior retraction using NiTi coils

RR assessed using PA

Martins et al. [[39]]

PA

✓

✓

Yes

Class II malocclusion

(2 Mx PM or 4 PM)

0.022-in. edgewise slot

HG and class II elastics (if necessary)

RR assessed using PA