What do systematic reviews say?

EMP + CAF vs CAF

• 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

XCM + CAF vs CAF

• 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

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

PRF + 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 was not reported for this comparison
  0 studies
  No studies found

ADMG + 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 main comparison)
  0 studies
  No studies found

EMP + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

• 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

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 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

ADMG + CAF vs 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 2)
  0 studies
  No studies found