2022
DOI: 10.1002/jper.22-0167
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Does the subepithelial connective tissue graft in conjunction with a coronally advanced flap remain as the gold standard therapy for the treatment of single gingival recession defects? A systematic review and network meta‐analysis

Abstract: Background The aim of this systematic review and network meta‐analysis (NMA) was to assess the efficacy of a bilaminar root coverage technique consisting of the combination of an autogenous subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) and a coronally advanced flap (CAF) compared with the five most indicated alternative approaches for the treatment of single gingival recession defects (GRD). Methods The protocol of this PRISMA 2020‐compliant systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020221362). Three e… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
37
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(37 citation statements)
references
References 63 publications
0
37
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Autogenous SCTG remains the gold standard in bilaminar root coverage procedures. 10 When SCTG is not selected, clinicians may consider soft tissue graft substitutes (e.g., xenografts or allografts) combined with a biologic. 3.…”
Section: Expert Opinionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Autogenous SCTG remains the gold standard in bilaminar root coverage procedures. 10 When SCTG is not selected, clinicians may consider soft tissue graft substitutes (e.g., xenografts or allografts) combined with a biologic. 3.…”
Section: Expert Opinionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The following statements summarize the consensus of the panel of experts: Adjunctive use of biologics enhances initial postoperative healing after root coverage and gingival augmentation therapy. Autogenous SCTG remains the gold standard in bilaminar root coverage procedures 10 . When SCTG is not selected, clinicians may consider soft tissue graft substitutes (e.g., xenografts or allografts) combined with a biologic. The safety of ABPs, EMD, and rhPDGF‐BB in the context of root coverage therapy is well documented, and there are no known therapeutic downsides to their routine use in clinical practice. …”
Section: Focused Clinical Questionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…5,9,26 Further, a recent study concluded that although adjunctive use of ABPs may result in enhanced root coverage and soft-tissue phenotype modification, the uses of other treatment modalities, including CAF + sCTG, CAF + ADM, and CAF + xenograft collagen matrix, have been shown to result in more predictable clinical outcomes compared with CAF + ABPs alone. 30 Clinically, there are also limitations to ABP use. Collection of blood requires venipuncture, which patients may consider to be onerous and could decrease patient acceptance of ABP use.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous studies have established that CAF + sCTG remains the gold standard for root coverage based upon current randomized controlled trials 5,9,26 . Further, a recent study concluded that although adjunctive use of ABPs may result in enhanced root coverage and soft‐tissue phenotype modification, the uses of other treatment modalities, including CAF + sCTG, CAF + ADM, and CAF + xenograft collagen matrix, have been shown to result in more predictable clinical outcomes compared with CAF + ABPs alone 30 . Clinically, there are also limitations to ABP use.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Also, it can be suggested that the use of ADM can reduce the complexity of the surgical procedure (because of the absence of a second surgical site) and chair‐time 30,31 . Taking into consideration the above‐mentioned aspects for the treatment of patients in need of root coverage and soft tissue phenotype modification (i.e., KT thickness and width gains), treatment options based on ADM + CAF (primarily), followed by XCM + CAF (secondarily) and PRF + CAF (tertiarily) have been ranked as the most suitable alternatives to the use SCTG + CAF 8,9,14 …”
Section: Overviewmentioning
confidence: 99%