What do systematic reviews say?

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

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

ADMG + CAF vs CAF

It is very uncertain whether ADMG + CAF changes sites with complete root coverage compared with 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)
  OR 3.97 [0.20, 80.50]
  2 studies · 50 participants
  Very low

GTR rm + CAF vs SCTG + 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 5)
  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 sites with complete root coverage 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)
  OR 1.87 [0.75, 4.64]
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

GTR rm + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

GTR rm + CAF may leads to lower gingival recession 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 -0.37 [-0.60, -0.13]
  3 studies · 98 participants
  Low

XCM + CAF vs CAF

XCM + CAF may leads to higher sites with complete root coverage 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)
  OR 4.73 [2.35, 9.50]
  2 studies · 104 participants
  Low

ADMG + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

It is very uncertain whether ADMG + 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 -0.59 [-1.27, 0.10]
  4 studies · 100 participants
  Very low

ADMG + CAF vs CAF

ADMG + CAF showed no clear difference in 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 0.28 [-0.08, 0.64]
  2 studies · 50 participants
  Low

ADMG + CAF vs CAF

ADMG + CAF showed no clear difference in 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 0.61 [-0.52, 1.73]
  2 studies · 50 participants
  Low

ADMG + CAF vs SCTG + 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 main comparison)
  0 studies
  No studies found

EMP + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

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

  10 years
  McGuire 2012 (10 years after surgery): 6 patients had no preference for a particular treatment, 2 favoured EMD + CAF, 1 favoured SCTG + CAF (P=0.564)
  1 study
  Very low

GTR rm + CAF vs GTR nrm + CAF

GTR rm + CAF showed no clear difference in gingival recession depth 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 0.23 [-0.22, 0.68]
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

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

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

  Short term (6 to 12 months)
  Dodge 2000: membrane exposure reported between the first and second weeks of healing
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

ADMG + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

ADMG + CAF showed no clear difference in gingival recession 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 -0.36 [-1.03, 0.30]
  4 studies · 100 participants
  Low

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: all patients preferred the GTR treatment because it was a single-step procedure
  1 study
  GRADE not reported