What do systematic reviews say?

XCM + CAF vs CAF

XCM + CAF may leads to higher gingival recession depth change compared with CAF (low certainty).

• Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short term (6 to 12 months)
  MD 0.40 [0.11, 0.68]
  2 studies · 104 participants
  Low

GTR rm + CAF vs GTR nrm + CAF

GTR rm + CAF showed no clear difference in sites with complete root coverage compared with GTR nrm + CAF; GRADE not reported.

• 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

EMP + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

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

• Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short term (6 to 12 months)
  MD -0.25 [-0.69, 0.20]
  2 studies · 62 participants
  Low

XCM + CAF vs CAF

XCM + CAF may leads to higher keratinized tissue width change compared with CAF (low certainty).

• Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short term (6 to 12 months)
  MD 0.44 [0.04, 0.85]
  2 studies · 104 participants
  Low

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

GTR rm associated with bone substitutes + CAF showed no clear difference in clinical attachment level change compared with GTR rm + CAF; GRADE not reported.

• 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

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

• 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

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

• 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

• 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

ADMG + CAF showed no clear difference in sites with complete root coverage compared with SCTG + CAF (low certainty).

• 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

It is very uncertain whether EMP + CAF changes keratinized tissue change compared with SCTG + CAF (very low certainty).

• 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

GTR rm associated with bone substitutes + CAF led to lower keratinized tissue width change compared with SCTG + CAF; GRADE not reported.

• 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

• 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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• 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

• 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

• 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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• 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

FMA stepwise advancement (SWG) vs FMA single step advancement (SSG)

FMA stepwise advancement (SWG) showed no clear difference in final overjet compared with FMA single step advancement (SSG); GRADE not reported.

• Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  End of orthodontic treatment
  MD 0.23 [-0.26, 0.72]
  1 study · 34 participants
  GRADE not reported

GTR rm + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

GTR rm + CAF showed no clear difference in sites with complete root coverage compared with SCTG + CAF (low certainty).

• 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

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

• 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

FMA stepwise advancement (SWG) vs FMA single step advancement (SSG)

FMA stepwise advancement (SWG) led to lower final ANB compared with FMA single step advancement (SSG); GRADE not reported.

• Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  End of orthodontic treatment
  MD -0.69 [-1.19, -0.19]
  1 study · 34 participants
  GRADE not reported