What do systematic reviews say?

9 questions · 10 findings · 1 reviews · Other oral health · related questions CL0289

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 5 · 50%Very low 0 · 0%Low 5 · 50%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

GTR rm + CAF vs GTR nrm + CAF

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

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

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 0.12 [-0.37, 0.60]
2 studies
GRADE not reported

GTR rm + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

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

GTR rm + CAF may leads to higher 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 0.35 [0.06, 0.63]
3 studies · 98 participants
Low

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

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

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

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 -0.52 [-1.34, 0.30]
2 studies
GRADE not reported

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

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

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

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

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 0.76 [-0.01, 1.54]
2 studies
GRADE not reported

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

EMP + CAF vs CAF

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

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

2 findings 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 0.22 [-0.02, 0.45]
3 studies · 136 participants
Low
Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
Short and medium term (6 to 24 months)
MD 0.35 [0.09, 0.61]
3 studies
GRADE not reported

PRF + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

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

PRF + CAF led to lower clinical attachment level change compared with SCTG + CAF; GRADE not reported.

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 -0.37 [-0.69, -0.06]
2 studies
GRADE not reported

XCM + CAF vs CAF

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

XCM + 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 0.37 [-0.09, 0.83]
2 studies · 104 participants
Low