Primary study · included by 1 review
Sculean 2001 (split-mouth)
ProbableThe reviews cited this study without a PMID, DOI or NCT, so it is matched by first author and year. Two different studies by the same author in the same year could be merged here.
Included by
| Outcome this study informs | Pooled effect | Evidence | Certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction (mm) guided tissue regeneration (GTR) vs enamel matrix derivatives (EMD) · 12 months (per supplementary data) | MD 1.06 | 5 studies | GRADE not reported |
Probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction (mm) guided tissue regeneration (GTR) vs enamel matrix derivatives (EMD) · 12 months (per supplementary data) | SMD 0.35 [-0.02, 0.71] | 10 studies | GRADE not reported |
Probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction (mm) guided tissue regeneration (GTR) vs enamel matrix derivatives (EMD) · 12 months (per supplementary data) | MD 1.08 [0.28, 1.88] | 5 studies · 257 participants | GRADE not reported |
Probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction (mm) guided tissue regeneration (GTR) vs enamel matrix derivatives (EMD) · 12 months (per supplementary data) | MD -0.96 [-2.51, 0.59] | 6 studies | GRADE not reported |
Probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction (mm) guided tissue regeneration (GTR) vs enamel matrix derivatives (EMD) · 12 months (per supplementary data) | MD 0.98 [0.62, 1.33] | 5 studies · 257 participants | GRADE not reported |
Probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction (mm) guided tissue regeneration (GTR) vs enamel matrix derivatives (EMD) · 12 months (per supplementary data) | MD -1.16 [-2.13, -0.20] | 9 studies | GRADE not reported |
Probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction (mm) guided tissue regeneration (GTR) vs enamel matrix derivatives (EMD) · 12 months (per supplementary data) | MD -0.14 [-0.54, 0.26] | 4 studies · 159 participants | GRADE not reported |
Probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction (mm) guided tissue regeneration (GTR) vs enamel matrix derivatives (EMD) · 12 months (per supplementary data) | MD 0.45 [0.20, 0.70] | 10 studies · 456 participants | GRADE not reported |
Probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction (mm) guided tissue regeneration (GTR) vs enamel matrix derivatives (EMD) | MD 0.38 [0.02, 0.74] | 8 studies | Low |
Probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction (mm) guided tissue regeneration (GTR) vs enamel matrix derivatives (EMD) | MD 0.60 [0.07, 1.14] | 8 studies | GRADE not reported |
Probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction (mm) guided tissue regeneration (GTR) vs enamel matrix derivatives (EMD) | MD 0.19 [-0.31, 0.68] | NR | GRADE not reported |
Probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction (mm) guided tissue regeneration (GTR) vs enamel matrix derivatives (EMD) · 12 months (per supplementary data) | MD 0.51 [-0.03, 1.05] | 10 studies · 456 participants | GRADE not reported |
Probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction (mm) guided tissue regeneration (GTR) vs enamel matrix derivatives (EMD) · 12 months (per supplementary data) | MD -0.14 [-0.54, 0.26] | 4 studies · 159 participants | GRADE not reported |
1 including review in total.