These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Efficacy and safety of acellular dermal matrix versus connective tissue graft for root coverage of Miller's Class I and II gingival recession: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Author: Zhang M, Wang M, Zhang C.
    Journal: Ann Palliat Med; 2022 Jul; 11(7):2478-2491. PubMed ID: 35927781.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety between connective tissue graft (CTG) and acellular dermal matrix (ADM) remain inconsistent. Meta-analysis is a valuable approach to resolve inconsistencies across studies and provide a high level of evidence to comprehensively evaluate the effect and safety of ADM versus CTG for root coverage of Miller's Class I and II gingival recession. Our study was conducted to comprehensively analyze the efficacy and safety of ADM versus CTG for root coverage in patients with gingival recession. METHODS: Articles on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the ADM with CTG for adult patients with the gingival recession in terms of percent root coverage (PRC), clinical attachment level (CAL), keratinized tissue (KT), probing depth (PD), recession width (RW), and recession depth (RD) were identified in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases until 15 May 2020. Weighted mean difference (WMD) was used as the statistic for measurement data and the effect sizes were expressed as 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: A total of 24 RCTs were eligible for the final analysis. A total of 587 patients with 1,315 gingival recession sites were involved in the study. There were 724 loci in the ADM group and 591 loci in the CTG group. The patients who underwent ADM had a higher gain in CAL (WMD: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.47, P=0.026) but a smaller gain in KT width (WMD: -0.44, 95% CI: -0.63 to -0.25, P<0.001) than those who underwent CTG. No significant differences were found between the patients who underwent ADM and those who received CTG in PRC (WMD: -1.61, 95% CI: -3.49 to 0.28, P=0.094), PD (WMD: 0.07, 95% CI: -0.01 to 0.14, P=0.067), RW (WMD: 0.07, 95% CI: -0.10 to 0.23, P=0.437), and RD (WMD: 0.11, 95% CI: -0.10 to 0.31, P=0.294). DISCUSSION: The ADM treatment for patients with gingival recession may be superior to CTG in gaining CAL, but CTG has a significant advantage over ADM for gaining KT width. ADM can be considered in the future as a treatment for root coverage in patients with gingival recession.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]