Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

1,149 questions · 1,211 findings · 179 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 175 · 14.5%GRADE not reported 86 · 7.1%Very low 286 · 23.6%Low 341 · 28.2%Moderate 254 · 21%High 69 · 5.7%

Laterally positioned flap (LPF) vs Any other root coverage procedure

Outcome not reported · 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
We did not find any RCTs evaluating laterally positioned flaps (LPF)
0 studies
No studies found

GTR rm associated with bone substitutes + 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)

GTR rm associated with bone substitutes + CAF showed no clear difference in gingival recession depth 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 -0.82 [-2.13, 0.49]
2 studies
GRADE not reported

GTR rm + CAF vs GTR nrm + 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

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 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 -0.52 [-1.34, 0.30]
2 studies
GRADE not reported

ADMG + CAF vs 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 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 0.51 [-0.25, 1.27]
2 studies · 50 participants
Low

XCM + CAF vs CAF

Change in gingival recession (REC) · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)

XCM + CAF may leads to higher gingival recession depth 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 0.40 [0.11, 0.68]
2 studies · 104 participants
Low

GTR rm + CAF vs GTR nrm + 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 GTR nrm + 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)
OR 1.33 [0.46, 3.85]
2 studies
GRADE not reported

EMP + CAF vs SCTG + 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 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 -0.25 [-0.69, 0.20]
2 studies · 62 participants
Low

XCM + CAF vs CAF

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

XCM + CAF may leads to higher keratinized tissue width 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 0.44 [0.04, 0.85]
2 studies · 104 participants
Low

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

Intervention not reported

Tobacco use · children and young people aged 0 to 18 years

The intervention showed no clear difference in tobacco use (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Individual‐, family‐, and school‐level interventions targeting multiple risk behaviours in young people 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 1.28 [0.75, 2.19]
2 studies · 521 participants
Moderate

Intervention not reported

Alcohol use · children and young people aged 0 to 18 years

The intervention showed no clear difference in alcohol use (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Individual‐, family‐, and school‐level interventions targeting multiple risk behaviours in young people 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 0.8 [0.58, 1.11]
4 studies · 1911 participants
Moderate

Intervention not reported

Cannabis use · children and young people aged 0 to 18 years

The intervention showed no clear difference in cannabis use (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Individual‐, family‐, and school‐level interventions targeting multiple risk behaviours in young people 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 0.69 [0.46, 1.04]
2 studies · 362 participants
Moderate

Intervention not reported

Illicit drug use · children and young people aged 0 to 18 years

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Individual‐, family‐, and school‐level interventions targeting multiple risk behaviours in young people 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Intervention not reported

Antisocial behaviour · children and young people aged 0 to 18 years

The intervention showed no clear difference in antisocial behaviour (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Individual‐, family‐, and school‐level interventions targeting multiple risk behaviours in young people 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 1.02 [0.62, 1.69]
1 study · 200 participants
Moderate

Intervention not reported

Sexual risk behaviour · children and young people aged 0 to 18 years

The intervention showed no clear difference in sexual risk behaviour (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Individual‐, family‐, and school‐level interventions targeting multiple risk behaviours in young people 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 0.42 [0.14, 1.25]
1 study · 162 participants
Moderate

Intervention not reported

Physical activity · children and young people aged 0 to 18 years

The intervention showed no clear difference in physical activity (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Individual‐, family‐, and school‐level interventions targeting multiple risk behaviours in young people 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 1.11 [0.74, 1.67]
2 studies · 1530 participants
Moderate

Intervention not reported

Tobacco use · children and young people aged 0 to 18 years

The intervention showed no clear difference in tobacco use (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Individual‐, family‐, and school‐level interventions targeting multiple risk behaviours in young people 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 0.78 [0.4, 1.53]
2 studies · 313 participants
Moderate

Intervention not reported

Alcohol use · children and young people aged 0 to 18 years

The intervention showed no clear difference in alcohol use (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Individual‐, family‐, and school‐level interventions targeting multiple risk behaviours in young people 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 0.83 [0.47, 1.46]
3 studies · 417 participants
Moderate

Intervention not reported

Cannabis use · children and young people aged 0 to 18 years

The intervention showed no clear difference in cannabis use (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Individual‐, family‐, and school‐level interventions targeting multiple risk behaviours in young people 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 1.02 [0.52, 2.02]
3 studies · 380 participants
Low