Good question. With regards to mainstream commercial jets it might not do much and quite possibly be counter-productive.
Most (all?) Boeing and Airbus have about 95% of weight on the main landing gear (MLG), and thus the nose brake wouldn't be very heavily weighted, so not very effective. And for reasons of rotation, you don't want to load the nose very much, but rather have it pivot around the wings: where your lift is coming from.
You can then design the nose landing gear (NLG) to be quite light because it doesn't see a lot of load, nor take large braking reaction forces. And doesn't have any brakes/hydraulics etc. And the same with the fuselage strength: it's okay if the MLG take all the load: they are already in the "beefy" section of the plane, and there is no moment arm (torque) due to a big displacement from the centre-of-gravity (CG).
However if you started to have large forces on the NLG, you have it a long way from the CG, and thus a big moment: you'd need to take that into account when you designed the fuselage, making it stronger, and thus heavier. At the moment with no lift on the front fuselage section, nor any forces from braking, you can make it pretty light.
Having the MLG at the CG and also centre-of-lift from the wings (drag from spoilers) makes for a very stable system. Inherently stable too: the faster you go, the more drag from the wings, and thus more weight on the MLG, which they need.
I think this will be the case for all planes with propulsion from the wings: regardless if props or jets. If you have a prop on the nose it's a bit different because you need to beef that up anyways, so you don't mind the braking loads from a nose-wheel. But I don't see a lot of advantages for it. You add all the extra weight of the hydraulics and brakes, plus the weight from making a much stranger assembly. More complexity, more to service and go wrong.