What do systematic reviews say?

7 questions · 7 findings · 1 reviews · Other oral health

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 7 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

ADMG + CAF vs 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)
Ahmedbeyli 2014: patients rated ADMG + CAF and CAF equally for pain during surgery, discomfort, postsurgical pain/swelling and complications
1 study
GRADE not reported

GTR rm + CAF vs SCTG + 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)
Wang 2001: two patients treated with SCTG experienced adverse effects (one postsurgical swelling, one postsurgical ecchymosis)
1 study
GRADE not reported

PRF + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

Occurrence of adverse effects or postoperative complications · Adult patients with multiple 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)
Oncu 2017: VAS showed less discomfort during the first postoperative week for PRF + CAF compared to SCTG + CAF
1 study
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

EMP + CAF vs SCTG + 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
McGuire 2012: patient-reported discomfort statistically significantly higher for SCTG than EMP + CAF, only at 1 month postoperatively
1 study
GRADE not reported

GTR rm + CAF vs GTR nrm + 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)
Roccuzzo 1996: membrane exposure reported between the first and second weeks of healing
1 study
GRADE not reported

XCM + CAF vs 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
Jepsen 2013: no differences regarding pain and discomfort between XCM + CAF and CAF (for all defects)
1 study
GRADE not reported