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%

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

EMP + 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)

1 finding from 1 review

Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
10 years
McGuire 2012 (10 years after surgery): 6 patients had no preference for a particular treatment, 2 favoured EMD + CAF, 1 favoured SCTG + CAF (P=0.564)
1 study
Very low

Laterally positioned flap (LPF) vs Any other root coverage procedure

Outcome not reported · 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
We did not find any RCTs evaluating laterally positioned flaps (LPF)
0 studies
No studies found

GTR rm + CAF vs GTR nrm + 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 was not reported for this comparison
0 studies
No studies found

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

Pedicled buccal fat pad flap (PBFPF) vs Buccal flap (BF)

Successful (complete) closure of oro-antral communication · People of any age with oro-antral communications, fistulae, or both caused by dental procedures

It is very uncertain whether pedicled buccal fat pad flap (PBFPF) changes successful (complete) closure of oro-antral communication compared with buccal flap (BF) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for treating oro‐antral communications and fistulae due to dental procedures 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
One month after surgery
RR 1.00 [0.83, 1.20]
1 study · 20 participants
Very low

Pedicled buccal fat pad flap (PBFPF) vs Buccal flap (BF)

Time to complete healing · 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

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 + CAF vs GTR nrm + CAF

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

GTR rm + CAF showed no clear difference in sites with complete root coverage 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)
OR 1.33 [0.46, 3.85]
2 studies
GRADE not reported

EMP + CAF vs SCTG + 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 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 -0.25 [-0.69, 0.20]
2 studies · 62 participants
Low

XCM + CAF vs CAF

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

XCM + CAF may leads to higher 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 0.44 [0.04, 0.85]
2 studies · 104 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

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

EMP + 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 EMP + 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 -1.06 [-1.36, -0.76]
2 studies · 62 participants
Very low

GTR rm associated with bone substitutes + CAF vs SCTG + 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 led to lower 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 -2.38 [-2.84, -1.92]
2 studies
GRADE not reported

GTR rm associated with bone substitutes + CAF vs GTR rm + 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 was not reported for this comparison
0 studies
No studies found

Non-surgical technique A vs Non-surgical technique B

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