What do systematic reviews say?

GTR rm + CAF vs GTR nrm + CAF

GTR rm + CAF showed no clear difference in clinical attachment level change compared with GTR nrm + CAF; GRADE not reported.

• Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short term (6 to 12 months)
  MD 0.12 [-0.37, 0.60]
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

GTR rm + CAF vs GTR nrm + CAF

GTR rm + CAF showed no clear difference in keratinized tissue width change compared with GTR nrm + CAF; GRADE not reported.

• Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short term (6 to 12 months)
  MD 0.12 [-0.23, 0.48]
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

GTR rm + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

GTR rm + CAF may leads to higher clinical attachment level change compared with SCTG + CAF (low certainty).

• Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short term (6 to 12 months)
  MD 0.35 [0.06, 0.63]
  3 studies · 98 participants
  Low

GTR rm + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• 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 5)
  0 studies
  No studies found

GTR rm + CAF vs GTR nrm + CAF

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short term (6 to 12 months)
  Aesthetic condition change was not reported for this comparison
  0 studies
  No studies found

GTR rm + CAF vs GTR nrm + CAF

GTR rm + CAF showed no clear difference in sites with complete root coverage compared with GTR nrm + CAF; GRADE not reported.

• Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short term (6 to 12 months)
  OR 1.33 [0.46, 3.85]
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

GTR rm + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

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

• Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short term (6 to 12 months)
  OR 0.61 [0.30, 1.24]
  3 studies · 98 participants
  Low

GTR rm + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

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

• Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short term (6 to 12 months)
  MD -1.77 [-2.66, -0.89]
  3 studies · 98 participants
  Very low

GTR rm associated with bone substitutes + CAF vs GTR rm + CAF

GTR rm associated with bone substitutes + CAF showed no clear difference in keratinized tissue width change compared with GTR rm + CAF; GRADE not reported.

• Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short term (6 to 12 months)
  MD 0.23 [-0.21, 0.68]
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

GTR rm associated with bone substitutes + CAF vs GTR rm + CAF

GTR rm associated with bone substitutes + CAF showed no clear difference in sites with complete root coverage compared with GTR rm + CAF; GRADE not reported.

• Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short term (6 to 12 months)
  OR 1.87 [0.75, 4.64]
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

GTR rm associated with bone substitutes + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

GTR rm associated with bone substitutes + CAF showed no clear difference in clinical attachment level change compared with SCTG + CAF; GRADE not reported.

• Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short term (6 to 12 months)
  MD -0.52 [-1.34, 0.30]
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

GTR rm associated with bone substitutes + CAF vs GTR rm + CAF

GTR rm associated with bone substitutes + CAF showed no clear difference in clinical attachment level change compared with GTR rm + CAF; GRADE not reported.

• Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short term (6 to 12 months)
  MD 0.76 [-0.01, 1.54]
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

GTR rm associated with bone substitutes + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

GTR rm associated with bone substitutes + CAF led to lower keratinized tissue width change compared with SCTG + CAF; GRADE not reported.

• Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short term (6 to 12 months)
  MD -2.38 [-2.84, -1.92]
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

GTR rm associated with bone substitutes + CAF vs GTR rm + CAF

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short term (6 to 12 months)
  Aesthetic condition change was not reported for this comparison
  0 studies
  No studies found

GTR rm associated with bone substitutes + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

• Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short term (6 to 12 months)
  Rosetti 2013: patient satisfaction survey indicated all patients satisfied with aesthetic results of both procedures at 18 months; no significant differences between 18- and 30-month assessments
  1 study
  GRADE not reported