BACKGROUND: The aim of this review is to conduct an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate whether baseline recession-, patient-, and procedure-related factors can influence the achievement of complete root coverage (CRC). METHODS: A literature search with no restrictions regarding status or the language of publication was performed for MEDLINE (for Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), EMBASE (for Excerpta Medica Database), CENTRAL (for Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Specialized Register databases up to and including March 2011. Only RCTs, with a duration of ≥6 months evaluating recession areas (Miller Class I or II) that were treated by means of root coverage procedures were included. Mixed-effects logistic regression analyses were conducted to evaluate associations between five baseline variables and CRC. RESULTS: Of the 70 potentially eligible trials, 22 were included in the meta-analyses. In total, the data from 320 patients and 16 procedures were evaluated. None of the RCTs were classified as low risk of bias. Of the 602 recessions treated, 310 (51.5%) achieved CRC. Subepithelial connective tissue grafts (SCTGs), matrix grafts, and enamel matrix derivative protein (EMD) procedures were superior in achieving CRC when compared to coronally advanced flap (CAF) alone. For the adjusted covariates, the greater the baseline recession depth, the smaller the chance of achieving CRC (individual procedure analysis [odds ratio (OR) = 0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.44, 0.70] and grouped procedure analysis [OR = 0.56; 95% CI = 0.45, 0.71]), as well as studies with conflict of interest were more likely to achieve CRC than those without conflict of interest (individual procedure analysis [OR = 6.78; 95% CI = 1.78, 25.86]). CONCLUSIONS: SCTGs, matrix grafts, and EMD were superior to CAF in achieving CRC, but SCTGs showed the best predictability. The impossibility of inclusion of all identified RCTs should be taken into consideration when interpreting the present findings.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this review is to conduct an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate whether baseline recession-, patient-, and procedure-related factors can influence the achievement of complete root coverage (CRC). METHODS: A literature search with no restrictions regarding status or the language of publication was performed for MEDLINE (for Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), EMBASE (for Excerpta Medica Database), CENTRAL (for Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Specialized Register databases up to and including March 2011. Only RCTs, with a duration of ≥6 months evaluating recession areas (Miller Class I or II) that were treated by means of root coverage procedures were included. Mixed-effects logistic regression analyses were conducted to evaluate associations between five baseline variables and CRC. RESULTS: Of the 70 potentially eligible trials, 22 were included in the meta-analyses. In total, the data from 320 patients and 16 procedures were evaluated. None of the RCTs were classified as low risk of bias. Of the 602 recessions treated, 310 (51.5%) achieved CRC. Subepithelial connective tissue grafts (SCTGs), matrix grafts, and enamel matrix derivative protein (EMD) procedures were superior in achieving CRC when compared to coronally advanced flap (CAF) alone. For the adjusted covariates, the greater the baseline recession depth, the smaller the chance of achieving CRC (individual procedure analysis [odds ratio (OR) = 0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.44, 0.70] and grouped procedure analysis [OR = 0.56; 95% CI = 0.45, 0.71]), as well as studies with conflict of interest were more likely to achieve CRC than those without conflict of interest (individual procedure analysis [OR = 6.78; 95% CI = 1.78, 25.86]). CONCLUSIONS: SCTGs, matrix grafts, and EMD were superior to CAF in achieving CRC, but SCTGs showed the best predictability. The impossibility of inclusion of all identified RCTs should be taken into consideration when interpreting the present findings.
Authors: Kleber Tanaka Suzuki; Cristhiam de Jesus Hernandez Martinez; Milena Irie Suemi; Daniela Bazan Palioto; Michel Reis Messora; Sérgio Luis Scombatti de Souza; Arthur Belem Novaes; Flavia A Chaves Furlaneto; Mario Taba Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2020-05-07 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Brenda Y Herrera-Serna; Olga P López-Soto; Tatiana Chacón; Ana M Montoya-Gómez; Daniela Agudelo-Flórez; Oscar H Zuluaga-López Journal: J Clin Exp Dent Date: 2022-09-01