Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

7 questions · 7 findings · 1 reviews · Oral Health

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 2 · 28.6%Very low 2 · 28.6%Low 3 · 42.9%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

EMP + 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)

It is very uncertain whether EMP + CAF changes sites with complete root coverage 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 and medium term (6 to 24 months)
OR 0.61 [0.05, 7.86]
2 studies · 62 participants
Very low

ADMG + CAF vs CAF

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

It is very uncertain whether ADMG + CAF changes sites with complete root coverage compared with 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)
OR 3.97 [0.20, 80.50]
2 studies · 50 participants
Very low

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

XCM + CAF vs CAF

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

XCM + CAF may leads to higher sites with complete root coverage 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)
OR 4.73 [2.35, 9.50]
2 studies · 104 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

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

GTR rm + 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)

GTR rm + 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 0.61 [0.30, 1.24]
3 studies · 98 participants
Low