AIM: The aim of this Systematic Review (SR) was to assess the clinical efficacy of alternatives procedures; Acellular Dermal Matrix (ADM), Xenogeneic Collagen Matrix (XCM), Enamel Matrix Derivative (EMD) and Platelet Rich Fibrin (PRF), compared to conventional procedures in the treatment of localized gingival recessions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Electronic searches were performed to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on treatment of single gingival recession with at least 6 months of follow-up. Applying guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA). The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool. RESULTS: Eighteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 390 treated patients (606 recessions) were included. This systematic review showed that: Coronally Advanced Flap (CAF) in conjunction with ADM was significantly better than CAF alone, while the comparison between CAF+ADM and CTG was affected by large uncertainty. The CAF+EMD was significantly better than CAF alone, whereas the comparison between CAF+EMD and CTG was affected by large uncertainty. No significant difference was recorded when comparing CAF+XCM with CAF alone, and the comparison between CAF+XCM and CTG was affected by large uncertainty. The comparison between PRF and others technique was affected by large uncertainty. CONCLUSION: ADM, XCM and EMD assisted to CAF might be considered alternatives of CTG in the treatment of Miller class I and II gingival recession.
AIM: The aim of this Systematic Review (SR) was to assess the clinical efficacy of alternatives procedures; Acellular Dermal Matrix (ADM), Xenogeneic Collagen Matrix (XCM), Enamel Matrix Derivative (EMD) and Platelet Rich Fibrin (PRF), compared to conventional procedures in the treatment of localized gingival recessions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Electronic searches were performed to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on treatment of single gingival recession with at least 6 months of follow-up. Applying guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA). The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool. RESULTS: Eighteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 390 treated patients (606 recessions) were included. This systematic review showed that: Coronally Advanced Flap (CAF) in conjunction with ADM was significantly better than CAF alone, while the comparison between CAF+ADM and CTG was affected by large uncertainty. The CAF+EMD was significantly better than CAF alone, whereas the comparison between CAF+EMD and CTG was affected by large uncertainty. No significant difference was recorded when comparing CAF+XCM with CAF alone, and the comparison between CAF+XCM and CTG was affected by large uncertainty. The comparison between PRF and others technique was affected by large uncertainty. CONCLUSION: ADM, XCM and EMD assisted to CAF might be considered alternatives of CTG in the treatment of Miller class I and II gingival recession.
Authors: Felipe Salinas; David Robla; Álvaro Meana; Marta Pevida; Gonzalo Martinez Magide; Cristina Sánchez Nuño; Luis Martín Suárez; Aurora Astudillo González; Eva García; Luis Junquera Journal: Cell Tissue Bank Date: 2021-09-01 Impact factor: 1.522
Authors: Gustavo Vicentis De Oliveira Fernandes; Nuno Bernardo Malta Santos; Rafael Amorim Cavalcanti De Siqueira; How-Lay Wang; Juan Blanco-Carrion; Juliana Campos Hasse Fernandes Journal: J Indian Soc Periodontol Date: 2021-11-01