What do systematic reviews say?

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

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

XCM + CAF vs CAF

• 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

It is very uncertain whether GTR rm + 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 -1.77 [-2.66, -0.89]
  3 studies · 98 participants
  Very low

EMP + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

It is very uncertain whether EMP + CAF changes gingival recession 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 -0.39 [-1.27, 0.48]
  2 studies · 62 participants
  Very low

Intervention not reported

It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes disability‐worsening Proportion of participants with… (very low certainty).

• Treatment with disease‐modifying drugs for people with a first clinical attack suggestive of multiple sclerosis 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 0.88 [0.5, 1.57]
  Studies not reported
  Very low

Intervention not reported

The intervention may leads to lower relapse Proportion of participants with relapse at a maximum of five… (low certainty).

• Treatment with disease‐modifying drugs for people with a first clinical attack suggestive of multiple sclerosis 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 0.35 [0.26, 0.48]
  Studies not reported
  Low

Double vs single‐injection technique

Double leads to lower primary anaesthesia failure (incomplete sensory block) compared with single‐injection technique (high certainty).

• Single, double or multiple‐injection techniques for non‐ultrasound guided axillary brachial plexus block in adults… 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.55 [0.34, 0.89]
  9 studies · 527 participants
  High

Double vs single‐injection technique

Double showed no clear difference in secondary analgesia failure ‐ intraoperative sedation required compared with single‐injection technique (moderate certainty).

• Single, double or multiple‐injection techniques for non‐ultrasound guided axillary brachial plexus block in adults… 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.64 [0.31, 1.31]
  2 studies · 129 participants
  Moderate

Double vs single‐injection technique

Double showed no clear difference in secondary analgesia failure ‐ tourniquet pain compared with single‐injection technique (moderate certainty).

• Single, double or multiple‐injection techniques for non‐ultrasound guided axillary brachial plexus block in adults… 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.58 [0.22, 1.52]
  2 studies · 104 participants
  Moderate

Double vs single‐injection technique

Double showed no clear difference in complete failure of block3 compared with single‐injection technique (low certainty).

• Single, double or multiple‐injection techniques for non‐ultrasound guided axillary brachial plexus block in adults… 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.29 [0.33, 5.01]
  7 studies · 368 participants
  Low