Oral diseases · 2024
Collagen Matrix Versus Subepithelial Connective Tissue for Recession Coverage: A Systematic Review.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zangani Alessandro, Gualtieri Miriana, Pardo Alessia, Signoriello Annarita, Faccioni Paolo, Colapinto Gianluca, Goker Funda, Lombardo Giorgio, Del Fabbro Massimo, Albanese Massimo
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcome of collagen matrix (CMX) compared with subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) in gingival recession coverage (RC) surgery.
METHODS: Review protocol was registered in PROSPERO. The search was conducted on MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases. Randomized studies comparing CMX versus. SCTG or CMX versus. covering procedures without any filling material, for class I recession treatment were included. Risk of bias assessment and quantitative analysis were performed.
RESULTS: Of 168 records, 11 randomized clinical trials were included. The meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in terms of %RC (p = 0.37); there was a statistically significant difference in terms of recession reduction (p = 0.02) and keratinized tissue width (p = 0.03) in favor of SCTG cases. CMX showed a statistically significantly better result compared to no grafting, regarding %RC (p = 0.003) and keratinized tissue thickness (p < 0.0001). The duration of the intervention was significantly shorter for CMX than for SCTG (p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: CMX can be considered a viable material, especially when a ΔKTt increase and a reduction of intervention duration is needed. The indications for the choice, however, may depend on the individual local condition. PROSPERO Registration: Registration in PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews): CRD42024555443.
METHODS: Review protocol was registered in PROSPERO. The search was conducted on MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases. Randomized studies comparing CMX versus. SCTG or CMX versus. covering procedures without any filling material, for class I recession treatment were included. Risk of bias assessment and quantitative analysis were performed.
RESULTS: Of 168 records, 11 randomized clinical trials were included. The meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in terms of %RC (p = 0.37); there was a statistically significant difference in terms of recession reduction (p = 0.02) and keratinized tissue width (p = 0.03) in favor of SCTG cases. CMX showed a statistically significantly better result compared to no grafting, regarding %RC (p = 0.003) and keratinized tissue thickness (p < 0.0001). The duration of the intervention was significantly shorter for CMX than for SCTG (p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: CMX can be considered a viable material, especially when a ΔKTt increase and a reduction of intervention duration is needed. The indications for the choice, however, may depend on the individual local condition. PROSPERO Registration: Registration in PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews): CRD42024555443.