What do systematic reviews say?

119 questions · 137 findings · 9 reviews · Other oral health · related questions CL0289

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 29 · 21.2%GRADE not reported 57 · 41.6%Very low 16 · 11.7%Low 34 · 24.8%Moderate 1 · 0.7%High 0 · 0%

No recall interval / patient-driven attendance vs A fixed recall interval

Outcome not reported · Children and adults receiving dental check-ups in primary care, irrespective of oral disease risk

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes
No studies identified comparing no-recall/patient-driven attendance with a fixed recall interval.
0 studies
No studies found

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

Surgical technique vs Non-surgical technique

Outcome not reported · People of any age with oro-antral communications, fistulae, or both caused by dental procedures

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for treating oro‐antral communications and fistulae due to dental procedures 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
no estimate extracted
0 studies
No studies found

EMP + 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)

1 finding from 1 review

Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
Sangiorgio 2017 (VAS): root coverage aesthetics and overall aesthetic results showed similar/equivalent outcomes for EMP + CAF and CAF
1 study
GRADE not reported

Surgical technique vs No treatment

Outcome not reported · People of any age with oro-antral communications, fistulae, or both caused by dental procedures

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for treating oro‐antral communications and fistulae due to dental procedures 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
no estimate extracted
0 studies
No studies found

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

Keratinized tissue width 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 keratinized tissue width 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 0.23 [-0.21, 0.68]
2 studies
GRADE not reported

XCM + 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)

1 finding from 1 review

Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
Sangiorgio 2017 (VAS): root coverage aesthetics and overall aesthetic results were similar for XCM + CAF and CAF, irrespective of the treatment applied
1 study
Low

EMP + CAF vs CAF

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

EMP + CAF led to higher keratinized tissue width change (short and medium term) compared with CAF; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
Short and medium term (6 to 24 months)
MD 0.40 [0.17, 0.62]
3 studies
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 0.35 [0.13, 0.56]
3 studies · 136 participants
Low

GTR rm + CAF vs GTR nrm + CAF

Keratinized tissue width 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 keratinized tissue width 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 [-0.23, 0.48]
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

PRF + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

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

PRF + CAF showed no clear difference in keratinized tissue width 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 -0.26 [-0.98, 0.45]
2 studies
GRADE not reported

EMP + 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)

It is very uncertain whether EMP + CAF changes sites with complete root coverage 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 and medium term (6 to 24 months)
OR 0.61 [0.05, 7.86]
2 studies · 62 participants
Very 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

GTR rm + 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 5)
0 studies
No studies found

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

Sites with complete root coverage · 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 sites with complete root coverage 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)
OR 1.87 [0.75, 4.64]
2 studies
GRADE not reported

XCM + CAF vs CAF

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

XCM + CAF may leads to higher sites with complete root coverage 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)
OR 4.73 [2.35, 9.50]
2 studies · 104 participants
Low

PRF + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

Aesthetic condition change related to patient's opinion · Adult patients with multiple 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 was not reported for this comparison
0 studies
No studies found

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

Non-surgical technique vs No treatment

Outcome not reported · People of any age with oro-antral communications, fistulae, or both caused by dental procedures

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for treating oro‐antral communications and fistulae due to dental procedures 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
no estimate extracted
0 studies
No studies found

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