What do systematic reviews say?

GTR rm associated with bone substitutes vs Open flap debridement (access flap surgery)

Guided tissue regeneration (GTR) combined with bone substitutes/graft led to higher hard tissue probing at surgical re-entry (bone gain) compared with open flap debridement (access flap surgery); GRADE not reported.

• Guided tissue regeneration for periodontal infra-bony defects 2006 · Cochrane All outcomes

  >=12 months
  MD 3.37 [3.14, 3.61]
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with barrier membrane (resorbable or non-resorbable) vs Open flap debridement (access flap surgery)

• Guided tissue regeneration for periodontal infra-bony defects 2006 · Cochrane All outcomes

  >=12 months
  Radiographic data was contained in two studies. Mayfield 1998 showed 0.6 mm gain in bone from the base of the defect in both test and control groups; Ratka-Kruger 2000 reported descriptively that only minute changes in…
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

Guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with barrier membrane (resorbable or non-resorbable) vs Open flap debridement (access flap surgery)

• Guided tissue regeneration for periodontal infra-bony defects 2006 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No tooth loss was reported in any study although these data are incomplete where patient follow-up was not complete (no events; no estimable effect).
  17 studies
  GRADE not reported

GTR rm associated with bone substitutes vs Open flap debridement (access flap surgery)

Guided tissue regeneration (GTR) combined with bone substitutes/graft led to higher change in clinical attachment level (attachment gain) compared with open flap debridement (access flap surgery); GRADE not reported.

• Guided tissue regeneration for periodontal infra-bony defects 2006 · Cochrane All outcomes

  >=12 months
  MD 1.25 [0.89, 1.61]
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

Guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with barrier membrane (resorbable or non-resorbable) vs Open flap debridement (access flap surgery)

Guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with barrier membrane (resorbable… led to higher change in probing depth (probing depth reduction) compared with open flap debridement (access flap surgery); GRADE not reported.

• Guided tissue regeneration for periodontal infra-bony defects 2006 · Cochrane All outcomes

  >=12 months
  MD 1.21 [0.53, 1.88]
  11 studies
  GRADE not reported

Guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with barrier membrane (resorbable or non-resorbable) vs Open flap debridement (access flap surgery)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Guided tissue regeneration for periodontal infra-bony defects 2006 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No data were found for this outcome (listed under 'Other outcomes: No data were found for the following outcomes').
  0 studies
  No studies found

Guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with barrier membrane (resorbable or non-resorbable) vs Open flap debridement (access flap surgery)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Guided tissue regeneration for periodontal infra-bony defects 2006 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No data were found for this outcome (listed under 'Other outcomes: No data were found for the following outcomes').
  0 studies
  No studies found

GTR rm associated with bone substitutes vs Open flap debridement (access flap surgery)

Guided tissue regeneration (GTR) combined with bone substitutes/graft led to higher change in probing depth (probing depth reduction) compared with open flap debridement (access flap surgery); GRADE not reported.

• Guided tissue regeneration for periodontal infra-bony defects 2006 · Cochrane All outcomes

  >=12 months
  MD 1.24 [0.89, 1.59]
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

GTR rm associated with bone substitutes vs Open flap debridement (access flap surgery)

Guided tissue regeneration (GTR) combined with bone substitutes/graft led to lower change in gingival recession compared with open flap debridement (access flap surgery); GRADE not reported.

• Guided tissue regeneration for periodontal infra-bony defects 2006 · Cochrane All outcomes

  >=12 months
  MD -0.33 [-0.43, -0.23]
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with barrier membrane (resorbable or non-resorbable) vs Open flap debridement (access flap surgery)

• Guided tissue regeneration for periodontal infra-bony defects 2006 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Cortellini 2001: 36% of GTR patients reported the procedure interfered with daily activity for an average of 2.7 days versus 32% of controls for an average of 2.4 days; no significant difference for postoperative pain…
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with barrier membrane (resorbable or non-resorbable) vs Open flap debridement (access flap surgery)

• Guided tissue regeneration for periodontal infra-bony defects 2006 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Adverse effects were generally minor. Healing was generally uneventful for both test and control groups. Exposure of the GTR barrier membrane was widely reported, ranging from 20% of sites (non-resorbable…
  16 studies
  GRADE not reported

Cell salvage vs no cell salvage

• Cell salvage for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion in adults undergoing elective surgery 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  1.19 [0.39, 3.65]
  6 studies · 384 participants
  Very low

Cell salvage vs no cell salvage

It is very uncertain whether cell salvage changes DVT (up to 90 days) compared with no cell salvage (very low certainty).

• Cell salvage for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion in adults undergoing elective surgery 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RD 0
  1 study · 100 participants
  Very low

Cell salvage vs no cell salvage

It is very uncertain whether cell salvage changes infection (up to 90 days) compared with no cell salvage (very low certainty).

• Cell salvage for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion in adults undergoing elective surgery 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.23 [0.03, 1.98]
  2 studies · 117 participants
  Very low

Cell salvage vs no cell salvage

• Cell salvage for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion in adults undergoing elective surgery 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  0.76 [0.17, 3.41]
  3 studies · 203 participants
  Very low

Cell salvage vs no cell salvage

• Cell salvage for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion in adults undergoing elective surgery 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  0.14 [0, 6.82]
  1 study · 100 participants
  Very low

Cell salvage vs no cell salvage

Cell salvage probably leads to lower transfusions (during hospital stay) compared with no cell salvage (moderate certainty).

• Cell salvage for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion in adults undergoing elective surgery 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.82 [0.69, 0.97]
  3 studies · 169 participants
  Moderate

Cell salvage vs no cell salvage

• Cell salvage for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion in adults undergoing elective surgery 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 56 participants
  Low

Cell salvage vs no cell salvage

• Cell salvage for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion in adults undergoing elective surgery 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  0.13 [0.01, 2.07]
  4 studies · 209 participants
  Very low

Cell salvage vs no cell salvage

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Cell salvage for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion in adults undergoing elective surgery 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found