Question · asked by 1 review

ADMG + CAF vs SCTG + CAF: Change in gingival recession (REC)

Population
Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)
Intervention
ADMG + CAF
Comparison
SCTG + CAF
Outcome
Change in gingival recession (REC)

ADMG + CAF showed no clear difference in gingival recession change compared with SCTG + CAF (low certainty).

What each review found

Current versions only
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
ADMG + CAF vs SCTG + CAF
Gingival recession change · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) · Short term (6 to 12 months)
ADMG + CAF showed no clear difference in gingival recession change compared with SCTG + CAF (low certainty).
Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane All outcomes
MD -0.36 [-1.03, 0.30]4 studies · 100 participantsLow

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 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.