Collagen Matrix Versus Subepithelial Connective Tissue for Recession Coverage: A Systematic Review.

IF 2.9 3区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Oral diseases Pub Date : 2024-12-09 DOI:10.1111/odi.15203

Alessandro Zangani, Miriana Gualtieri, Alessia Pardo, Annarita Signoriello, Paolo Faccioni, Gianluca Colapinto, Funda Goker, Giorgio Lombardo, Massimo Del Fabbro, Massimo Albanese

{"title":"Collagen Matrix Versus Subepithelial Connective Tissue for Recession Coverage: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Alessandro Zangani, Miriana Gualtieri, Alessia Pardo, Annarita Signoriello, Paolo Faccioni, Gianluca Colapinto, Funda Goker, Giorgio Lombardo, Massimo Del Fabbro, Massimo Albanese","doi":"10.1111/odi.15203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":19615,"journal":{"name":"Oral diseases","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oral diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/odi.15203","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Oral diseases 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

7.60

自引率

5.30%

发文量

325

审稿时长

4-8 weeks

期刊介绍： Oral Diseases is a multidisciplinary and international journal with a focus on head and neck disorders, edited by leaders in the field, Professor Giovanni Lodi (Editor-in-Chief, Milan, Italy), Professor Stefano Petti (Deputy Editor, Rome, Italy) and Associate Professor Gulshan Sunavala-Dossabhoy (Deputy Editor, Shreveport, LA, USA). The journal is pre-eminent in oral medicine. Oral Diseases specifically strives to link often-isolated areas of dentistry and medicine through broad-based scholarship that includes well-designed and controlled clinical research, analytical epidemiology, and the translation of basic science in pre-clinical studies. The journal typically publishes articles relevant to many related medical specialties including especially dermatology, gastroenterology, hematology, immunology, infectious diseases, neuropsychiatry, oncology and otolaryngology. The essential requirement is that all submitted research is hypothesis-driven, with significant positive and negative results both welcomed. Equal publication emphasis is placed on etiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, prevention and treatment.