EMP + CAF vs CAF: Keratinized tissue change
- Population
- Adults with localised or multiple recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)
- Intervention
- EMP + CAF
- Comparison
- CAF
- Outcome
- Keratinized tissue change
Enamel matrix protein (EMP) + CAF led to higher keratinized tissue change compared with coronally advanced flap (CAF); GRADE not reported.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Enamel matrix protein (EMP) + CAF vs Coronally advanced flap (CAF) Keratinized tissue change · Adults with localised or multiple recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) · Long term (13 or more months) Enamel matrix protein (EMP) + CAF led to higher keratinized tissue change compared with coronally advanced flap (CAF); GRADE not reported. Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2009) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD007161.PUB2, superseded | MD 0.40 [0.09, 0.71] | 2 studies | GRADE not reported |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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes | 15 January 2018 | Not listed | Not assessed |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- EMP + 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.