What do systematic reviews say?

Clinical examination with risk-based recall vs Clinical examination with 6-month recall

Clinical examination with risk-based recall showed no clear difference in oral health knowledge (1-9 scale) compared with clinical examination with 6-month recall; GRADE not reported.

• Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  4 years
  MD -0.01 [-0.03, 0.01]
  1 study · 1604 participants
  GRADE not reported

Clinical examination with 24-month recall vs Clinical examination with 6-month recall

Clinical examination with 24-month recall showed no clear difference in oral health knowledge (1-9 scale) compared with clinical examination with 6-month recall; GRADE not reported.

• Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  4 years
  MD -0.01 [-0.05, 0.03]
  1 study · 308 participants
  GRADE not reported

Clinical examination with risk-based recall vs Clinical examination with 24-month recall

Clinical examination with risk-based recall showed no clear difference in dental caries: number of tooth surfaces with any caries (ICDAS 1-6) compared with clinical examination with 24-month recall (moderate certainty).

• Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  4 years
  MD 1.40 [-0.69, 3.49]
  1 study · 279 participants
  Moderate

Clinical examination with risk-based recall vs Clinical examination with 24-month recall

Clinical examination with risk-based recall led to higher cost (patient perspective): total cost per patient (GBP) compared with clinical examination with 24-month recall; GRADE not reported.

• Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  4 years
  MD 34.00 [9.78, 58.22]
  1 study · 375 participants
  GRADE not reported

ADMG + CAF vs CAF

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

  Short term (6 to 12 months)
  Ahmedbeyli 2014: patients rated ADMG + CAF and CAF equally for pain during surgery, discomfort, postsurgical pain/swelling and complications
  1 study
  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: two patients treated with SCTG experienced adverse effects (one postsurgical swelling, one postsurgical ecchymosis)
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

GTR rm + CAF vs GTR nrm + CAF

GTR rm + CAF showed no clear difference in clinical attachment level change 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)
  MD 0.12 [-0.37, 0.60]
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

Pedicled buccal fat pad flap (PBFPF) vs Buccal flap (BF)

• Interventions for treating oro‐antral communications and fistulae due to dental procedures 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  None reported as there were no treatment failures.
  1 study · 20 participants
  GRADE not reported

Surgical technique vs Non-surgical technique

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for treating oro‐antral communications and fistulae due to dental procedures 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies
  No studies found

EMP + CAF vs CAF

• Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Sangiorgio 2017 (VAS): root coverage aesthetics and overall aesthetic results showed similar/equivalent outcomes for EMP + CAF and CAF
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Surgical technique vs No treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for treating oro‐antral communications and fistulae due to dental procedures 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies
  No studies found

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

GTR rm associated with bone substitutes + CAF showed no clear difference in keratinized tissue width 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 0.23 [-0.21, 0.68]
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

XCM + CAF vs CAF

• Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Sangiorgio 2017 (VAS): root coverage aesthetics and overall aesthetic results were similar for XCM + CAF and CAF, irrespective of the treatment applied
  1 study
  Low

EMP + CAF vs CAF

EMP + CAF led to higher keratinized tissue width change (short and medium term) compared with CAF; GRADE not reported.

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

  Short and medium term (6 to 24 months)
  MD 0.40 [0.17, 0.62]
  3 studies
  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 0.35 [0.13, 0.56]
  3 studies · 136 participants
  Low

EMP + CAF vs CAF

EMP + CAF led to higher gingival recession depth change (short and medium term) compared with CAF; GRADE not reported.

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

  Short and medium term (6 to 24 months)
  MD 0.32 [0.10, 0.55]
  3 studies
  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 0.07 [-0.25, 0.40]
  3 studies · 136 participants
  Low

GTR rm + CAF vs GTR nrm + CAF

GTR rm + CAF showed no clear difference in keratinized tissue width change 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)
  MD 0.12 [-0.23, 0.48]
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

GTR rm + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

GTR rm + CAF may leads to higher 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 0.35 [0.06, 0.63]
  3 studies · 98 participants
  Low

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

GTR rm associated with bone substitutes + CAF led to higher gingival recession depth 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 0.48 [0.09, 0.88]
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

PRF + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

PRF + CAF showed no clear difference in 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 -0.26 [-0.98, 0.45]
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

EMP + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

It is very uncertain whether EMP + CAF changes sites with complete root coverage compared with SCTG + CAF (very low certainty).

• 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