GTR rm associated with bone substitutes vs Open flap debridement (access flap surgery): Change in probing pocket depth (PPD)
- Population
- Patients with chronic periodontitis (aged 21 years or older) with periodontal infra-bony defects; furcation-involved teeth and aggressive periodontitis excluded
- Intervention
- GTR rm associated with bone substitutes
- Comparison
- Open flap debridement (access flap surgery)
- Outcome
- Change in probing pocket depth (PPD)
Guided tissue regeneration (GTR) combined with bone substitutes/graft led to higher change in probing depth (probing depth reduction) compared with open flap debridement (access flap surgery); GRADE not reported.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Guided tissue regeneration (GTR) combined with bone substitutes/graft vs Open flap debridement (access flap surgery) Change in probing depth (probing depth reduction) · Patients with chronic periodontitis (aged 21 years or older) with periodontal infra-bony defects; furcation-involved… · >=12 months Guided tissue regeneration (GTR) combined with bone substitutes/graft led to higher change in probing depth (probing depth reduction) compared with open flap debridement (access flap surgery); GRADE not reported. Guided tissue regeneration for periodontal infra-bony defects (2006) · Cochrane All outcomes | MD 1.24 [0.89, 1.59] | 2 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Guided tissue regeneration for periodontal infra-bony defects 2006 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2004-04 | Not listed | Not assessed |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- GTR rm associated with bone substitutes vs Open flap debridement (access flap surgery) · Patients with chronic adult periodontitis (aged 21 years or older) with periodontal… · 0 reviews
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.