Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

57 questions · 60 findings · 1 reviews · Other oral health

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 7 · 11.7%GRADE not reported 28 · 46.7%Very low 7 · 11.7%Low 18 · 30%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

GTR rm associated with bone substitutes + CAF vs GTR rm + CAF

Attachment 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 clinical attachment level 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 0.76 [-0.01, 1.54]
2 studies
GRADE not reported

ADMG + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

Attachment change · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)

ADMG + CAF showed no clear difference in clinical attachment level change 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)
MD -0.53 [-1.14, 0.08]
4 studies · 100 participants
Low

EMP + CAF vs CAF

Attachment change · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)

EMP + CAF showed no clear difference in clinical attachment level change compared with CAF (low certainty).

2 findings 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 0.22 [-0.02, 0.45]
3 studies · 136 participants
Low
Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
Short and medium term (6 to 24 months)
MD 0.35 [0.09, 0.61]
3 studies
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

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

EMP + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

Keratinized tissue change · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)

It is very uncertain whether EMP + CAF changes keratinized tissue change 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 term (6 to 12 months)
MD -1.06 [-1.36, -0.76]
2 studies · 62 participants
Very low

GTR rm associated with bone substitutes + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

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 led to lower keratinized tissue width 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 -2.38 [-2.84, -1.92]
2 studies
GRADE not reported

GTR rm + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

Patients' preference for a specific procedure · 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: participants reported greater overall satisfaction with GTR rm than SCTG (reduced treatment time, no need for a second surgical site)
1 study
GRADE not reported

GTR rm associated with bone substitutes + CAF vs GTR rm + CAF

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

Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
Short term (6 to 12 months)
Aesthetic condition change was not reported for this comparison
0 studies
No studies found

GTR rm associated with bone substitutes + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

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

Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
Short term (6 to 12 months)
Rosetti 2013: patient satisfaction survey indicated all patients satisfied with aesthetic results of both procedures at 18 months; no significant differences between 18- and 30-month assessments
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

ADMG + CAF vs CAF

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

Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
Short term (6 to 12 months)
Aesthetic condition change related to patient's opinion: Not reported (SoF 2)
0 studies
No studies found

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

XCM + CAF vs CAF

Attachment change · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)

XCM + CAF showed no clear difference in clinical attachment level 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 0.37 [-0.09, 0.83]
2 studies · 104 participants
Low

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

GTR rm + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

Keratinized tissue change · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)

It is very uncertain whether GTR rm + CAF changes keratinized tissue change 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 term (6 to 12 months)
MD -1.77 [-2.66, -0.89]
3 studies · 98 participants
Very low

EMP + 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)

It is very uncertain whether EMP + CAF changes gingival recession change 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 term (6 to 12 months)
MD -0.39 [-1.27, 0.48]
2 studies · 62 participants
Very low