Restoration survival · Primary posterior teeth with multiple-surface cavities
The pooled survival rate was 62% at 2 years.
3 findings from 1 review
Ultrasonic instrumentation used alone (any ultrasonic device designed specifically for root canal treatment and capable of the active or passive removal of dentine within the root canal) vs Hand instrumentation used alone (files and reamers used manually)
Outcome not reported · People over 18 years of age with single or multiple permanent teeth with a completely formed apex and no evidence of internal resorption,…
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Hand instrumentation in conjunction with (as an adjunct to) an ultrasonic device designed specifically for root canal treatment and capable of the active or passive removal of dentine within the root canal vs Hand instrumentation used alone (files and reamers used manually)
Outcome not reported · People over 18 years of age with single or multiple permanent teeth with a completely formed apex and no evidence of internal resorption,…
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
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
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
Attachment change · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)
GTR rm + CAF showed no clear difference in clinical attachment level change compared with GTR nrm + CAF; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
MD 0.12 [-0.37, 0.60]
2 studies
GRADE not reported
Aesthetic condition change related to patient's opinion · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)
1 finding from 1 review
Keratinized tissue width change · 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 keratinized tissue width change compared with GTR rm + CAF; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
MD 0.23 [-0.21, 0.68]
2 studies
GRADE not reported
Aesthetic condition change related to patient's opinion · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)
1 finding from 1 review
Keratinized tissue width change · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)
EMP + CAF led to higher keratinized tissue width change (short and medium term) compared with CAF; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
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
Keratinized tissue width change · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)
GTR rm + CAF showed no clear difference in keratinized tissue width change compared with GTR nrm + CAF; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
MD 0.12 [-0.23, 0.48]
2 studies
GRADE not reported
Attachment change · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)
GTR rm + CAF may leads to higher clinical attachment level change compared with SCTG + CAF (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
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
MD 0.48 [0.09, 0.88]
2 studies
GRADE not reported
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
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
Aesthetic condition change related to patient's opinion · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
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
OR 1.87 [0.75, 4.64]
2 studies
GRADE not reported
Change in gingival recession (REC) · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)
GTR rm + CAF may leads to lower gingival recession change compared with SCTG + CAF (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
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