What do systematic reviews say?

8 questions · 8 findings · 1 reviews · Oral Health · related questions CL0289

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 2 · 25%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 2 · 25%Low 4 · 50%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Closest answers

The findings closest to your search, judged one by one by TypeSafe's Jev model.

Direct match · question page
- ADMG + CAF vs CAF · Sites with complete root coverage
  Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Short term (6 to 12 months)
  OR 3.97 [0.20, 80.50]
  2 studies · 50 participants
  Very low
Direct match · question page
- ADMG + CAF vs CAF · Clinical attachment level change
  Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Short term (6 to 12 months)
  MD 0.51 [-0.25, 1.27]
  2 studies · 50 participants
  Low
Direct match · question page
- ADMG + CAF vs CAF · Keratinized tissue width change
  Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Short term (6 to 12 months)
  MD 0.28 [-0.08, 0.64]
  2 studies · 50 participants
  Low
Direct match · question page
- ADMG + CAF vs SCTG + CAF · Clinical attachment level change
  Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Short term (6 to 12 months)
  MD -0.53 [-1.14, 0.08]
  4 studies · 100 participants
  Low
Direct match · question page
- ADMG + CAF vs SCTG + CAF · Sites with complete root coverage
  Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Short term (6 to 12 months)
  OR 0.43 [0.13, 1.37]
  2 studies · 50 participants
  Low

ADMG + CAF vs CAF

Sites with complete root coverage · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)

It is very uncertain whether ADMG + CAF changes sites with complete root coverage compared with CAF (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
Short term (6 to 12 months)
OR 3.97 [0.20, 80.50]
2 studies · 50 participants
Very low

ADMG + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

Keratinized tissue change · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)

It is very uncertain whether ADMG + CAF changes keratinized tissue change compared with SCTG + CAF (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
Short term (6 to 12 months)
MD -0.59 [-1.27, 0.10]
4 studies · 100 participants
Very low

ADMG + CAF vs CAF

Keratinized tissue width change · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)

ADMG + CAF showed no clear difference in keratinized tissue width change compared with CAF (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
Short term (6 to 12 months)
MD 0.28 [-0.08, 0.64]
2 studies · 50 participants
Low

ADMG + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

Aesthetic condition change related to patient's opinion · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
Short term (6 to 12 months)
Aesthetic condition change related to patient's opinion: Not reported (SoF main comparison)
0 studies
No studies found

ADMG + CAF vs CAF

Attachment change · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)

ADMG + CAF showed no clear difference in clinical attachment level change compared with CAF (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
Short term (6 to 12 months)
MD 0.51 [-0.25, 1.27]
2 studies · 50 participants
Low

ADMG + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

Attachment change · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)

ADMG + CAF showed no clear difference in clinical attachment level change compared with SCTG + CAF (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
Short term (6 to 12 months)
MD -0.53 [-1.14, 0.08]
4 studies · 100 participants
Low

ADMG + 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)

ADMG + CAF showed no clear difference in sites with complete root coverage compared with SCTG + CAF (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
Short term (6 to 12 months)
OR 0.43 [0.13, 1.37]
2 studies · 50 participants
Low

ADMG + CAF vs CAF

Aesthetic condition change related to patient's opinion · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
Short term (6 to 12 months)
Aesthetic condition change related to patient's opinion: Not reported (SoF 2)
0 studies
No studies found