What do systematic reviews say?

10 questions · 10 findings · 1 reviews · Other oral health

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 1 · 10%GRADE not reported 9 · 90%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

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

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

Change in gingival recession (REC) · 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 higher gingival recession depth 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 0.48 [0.09, 0.88]
2 studies
GRADE not reported

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

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

Occurrence of adverse effects or postoperative complications · 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
Short term (6 to 12 months)
Dodge 2000: membrane exposure reported between the first and second weeks of healing
1 study
GRADE not reported

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

Change in gingival recession (REC) · 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 gingival recession depth 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 -0.82 [-2.13, 0.49]
2 studies
GRADE not reported

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

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

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

GTR rm associated with bone substitutes + 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
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