What do systematic reviews say?

7 questions · 8 findings · 1 reviews · Oral Health

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 5 · 62.5%Very low 0 · 0%Low 3 · 37.5%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

EMP + CAF vs CAF

Change in gingival recession (REC) · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)

EMP + CAF led to higher gingival recession depth 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 0.32 [0.10, 0.55]
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 0.07 [-0.25, 0.40]
3 studies · 136 participants
Low

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

ADMG + CAF vs CAF

Change in gingival recession (REC) · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)

ADMG + CAF showed no clear difference in gingival recession depth 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 0.61 [-0.52, 1.73]
2 studies · 50 participants
Low

GTR rm + CAF vs GTR nrm + CAF

Change in gingival recession (REC) · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)

GTR rm + CAF showed no clear difference in gingival recession depth 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 0.23 [-0.22, 0.68]
2 studies
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

XCM + CAF vs CAF

Change in gingival recession (REC) · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)

XCM + CAF may leads to higher gingival recession depth 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 0.40 [0.11, 0.68]
2 studies · 104 participants
Low

PRF + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

Change in gingival recession (REC) · Adult patients with multiple recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)

PRF + 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 -0.01 [-0.89, 0.86]
2 studies
GRADE not reported