Background Peak height velocity (PHV) is a critical indicator of pubertal growth timing and is widely used in orthodontics to determine optimal timing for growth modification interventions. Secular trends toward earlier maturation have been reported, but a quantitative synthesis of PHV age reduction across generations is lacking.

Objective To systematically review and quantitatively synthesize evidence for secular trends in age at PHV and to estimate the pooled mean difference in PHV age between historical and contemporary cohorts.

Methods A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and Google Scholar from January 1990 to December 2021. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) was also searched but yielded no eligible studies due to the specificity of the search string. Studies were included if they reported age at PHV in two or more birth cohorts separated by at least 20 years, used objective methods to determine PHV (longitudinal growth data with curve fitting), and reported means with standard deviations or standard errors. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects quantitative synthesis (meta-analytic approach) was performed to calculate the pooled mean difference in PHV age between historical and contemporary cohorts. Between-study variance (tau-squared) was estimated using the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) method. Heterogeneity was assessed using I-squared statistics. Given the limited number of eligible studies, findings should be interpreted as preliminary.

Results Two high-quality longitudinal studies met inclusion criteria, comprising 171 participants from historical cohorts (1969-1973) and 71 participants from contemporary cohorts (1996-2000). The pooled mean difference in PHV age was -0.48 years (95% CI: -0.72 to -0.24, P < 0.001), indicating that contemporary children reach PHV approximately 0.5 years earlier than their historical counterparts. PHV velocity showed a pooled increase of 0.71 cm/year (95% CI: 0.48 to 0.94, P < 0.001). Heterogeneity was low (I-squared = 0% for both analyses). Both studies were rated as low risk of bias. These findings are based on a limited number of studies and should be interpreted as preliminary.

Conclusions This preliminary quantitative synthesis provides evidence of a secular decline in age at peak height velocity of approximately 0.5 years in contemporary children compared to historical cohorts, accompanied by an increase in growth velocity. These findings suggest that orthodontic growth modification strategies may need to be initiated earlier than traditionally recommended. However, given the limited evidence base, results should be interpreted with caution and require confirmation in large-scale longitudinal studies.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. No payments or services from a third party were received for any aspect of the submitted work.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All data referred to in this manuscript are available in the published studies cited in the reference list. The search strategy, inclusion criteria, and data extraction methods are fully described in the Methods section. Extracted datasets and effect size calculations are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.