Question · asked by 1 review
EMP + CAF vs SCTG + CAF: Sites with complete root coverage
- Population
- Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)
- Intervention
- EMP + CAF
- Comparison
- SCTG + CAF
- Outcome
- Sites with complete root coverage
It is very uncertain whether EMP + CAF changes sites with complete root coverage compared with SCTG + CAF (very low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
EMP + CAF vs SCTG + CAF Sites with complete root coverage · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) · Short and medium term (6 to 24 months) It is very uncertain whether EMP + CAF changes sites with complete root coverage compared with SCTG + CAF (very low certainty). Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane All outcomes | OR 0.61 [0.05, 7.86] | 2 studies · 62 participants | Very low |
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 |
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.