Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

57 questions · 60 findings · 1 reviews · Other oral health

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 7 · 11.7%GRADE not reported 28 · 46.7%Very low 7 · 11.7%Low 18 · 30%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

PRF + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

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

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

PRF + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

Occurrence of adverse effects or postoperative complications · Adult patients with multiple recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)

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)
Oncu 2017: VAS showed less discomfort during the first postoperative week for PRF + CAF compared to SCTG + CAF
1 study
GRADE not reported

PRF + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

Aesthetic condition change related to patient's opinion · Adult patients with multiple 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

PRF + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

Attachment change · Adult patients with multiple recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)

PRF + CAF led to lower 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 -0.37 [-0.69, -0.06]
2 studies
GRADE not reported

PRF + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

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

PRF + 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 -0.01 [-0.89, 0.86]
2 studies
GRADE not reported

ADMG + CAF vs CAF

Occurrence of adverse effects or postoperative complications · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)

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)
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

Occurrence of adverse effects or postoperative complications · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)

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)
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

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

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

EMP + CAF vs 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)

1 finding from 1 review

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

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

Keratinized tissue width 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 keratinized tissue width 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 0.23 [-0.21, 0.68]
2 studies
GRADE not reported

XCM + CAF vs 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)

1 finding from 1 review

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

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

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

2 findings from 1 review

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

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

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

2 findings from 1 review

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

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

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

GTR rm + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

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

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

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

EMP + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

Sites with complete root coverage · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)

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

1 finding from 1 review

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

Sites with complete root coverage · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)

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

GTR rm + CAF vs SCTG + 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 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

Sites with complete root coverage · 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 sites with complete root coverage 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)
OR 1.87 [0.75, 4.64]
2 studies
GRADE not reported