EMP + CAF vs CAF: Change in gingival recession (REC)
- Population
- Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)
- Intervention
- EMP + CAF
- Comparison
- CAF
- Outcome
- Change in gingival recession (REC)
EMP + CAF led to higher gingival recession depth change (short and medium term) compared with CAF; GRADE not reported.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
EMP + CAF vs CAF Gingival recession depth change (short and medium term) · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) · Short and medium term (6 to 24 months) EMP + CAF led to higher gingival recession depth change (short and medium term) compared with CAF; GRADE not reported. Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane All outcomes | MD 0.32 [0.10, 0.55] | 3 studies | GRADE not reported |
EMP + CAF vs CAF Gingival recession depth change · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm) · Short term (6 to 12 months) EMP + CAF showed no clear difference in gingival recession depth change compared with CAF (low certainty). Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects (2018) · Cochrane All outcomes | MD 0.07 [-0.25, 0.40] | 3 studies · 136 participants | 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 |
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
- EMP + CAF vs CAF · Adults with localised or multiple recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3… · 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.