Question · asked by 1 review

ADMG + CAF vs CAF: Sites with complete root coverage

Population
Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)
Intervention
ADMG + CAF
Comparison
CAF
Outcome
Sites with complete root coverage

It is very uncertain whether ADMG + CAF changes sites with complete root coverage compared with CAF (very low certainty).

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
ADMG + CAF vs CAF
Sites with complete root coverage · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) · Short term (6 to 12 months)
It is very uncertain whether ADMG + CAF changes sites with complete root coverage compared with CAF (very low certainty).
Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane All outcomes
OR 3.97 [0.20, 80.50]2 studies · 50 participantsVery low

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects
2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
15 January 2018Not listedNot assessed

The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.

  • ADMG + CAF vs SCTG + CAF · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at… · 1 review
How reviews are matched to this question

Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.