Gingival recession is a mucogingival defect defined as the apical shifting of the gingival margin in relation to the CEJ. The use of connective tissue autografts allows for the obtention of very satisfactory results but is associated with undoubted disadvantages. The aim of the present work is to carry out a systematic review of the literature using a meta-analysis to investigate the clinical efficacy of xenogeneic collagen matrix (XCM) in the treatment of gingival recessions. This revision was carried out strictly following the guidelines published in the Cochrane Handbook. Thus, a meta-analysis was performed to calculate relative risks and standardized mean differences for each of the variables considered. The results of the meta-analysis show that CAF + CTG was statistically better than CAF + XCM in almost all the variables analyzed: complete root coverage (RR 0.46), mean root coverage (SMD -0.89), recession reduction (SMD -0.98), clinical attachment level (SMD -0.63) and gingival thickness (SMD -1.68). Meanwhile, CAF + XCM was slightly better than CAF alone in regard to: mean root coverage (SMD 0.51), recession reduction (SMD 0.47) and gingival thickness (SMD 0.56). It is possible to conclude that CAF + CTG still remains the gold standard in radicular coverage.

A New Matrix for Soft Tissue Management

De Santis, Daniele;Luciano, Umberto;Gelpi, Federico
2022-01-01

Abstract

Gingival recession is a mucogingival defect defined as the apical shifting of the gingival margin in relation to the CEJ. The use of connective tissue autografts allows for the obtention of very satisfactory results but is associated with undoubted disadvantages. The aim of the present work is to carry out a systematic review of the literature using a meta-analysis to investigate the clinical efficacy of xenogeneic collagen matrix (XCM) in the treatment of gingival recessions. This revision was carried out strictly following the guidelines published in the Cochrane Handbook. Thus, a meta-analysis was performed to calculate relative risks and standardized mean differences for each of the variables considered. The results of the meta-analysis show that CAF + CTG was statistically better than CAF + XCM in almost all the variables analyzed: complete root coverage (RR 0.46), mean root coverage (SMD -0.89), recession reduction (SMD -0.98), clinical attachment level (SMD -0.63) and gingival thickness (SMD -1.68). Meanwhile, CAF + XCM was slightly better than CAF alone in regard to: mean root coverage (SMD 0.51), recession reduction (SMD 0.47) and gingival thickness (SMD 0.56). It is possible to conclude that CAF + CTG still remains the gold standard in radicular coverage.
collagen matrix
connective tissue graft
free gingival graft
gingival recession
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
jcm-11-04486-2.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Documento in Post-print
Licenza: Dominio pubblico
Dimensione 4.2 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
4.2 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11562/1079789
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact