Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorToledano Osorio, Manuel 
dc.contributor.authorMuñoz Soto, Esther
dc.contributor.authorToledano Pérez, Manuel 
dc.contributor.authorVallecillo Rivas, Marta
dc.contributor.authorVallecillo, Cristina
dc.contributor.authorRamos García, Pablo 
dc.contributor.authorOsorio Ruiz, Raquel
dc.identifier.citationToledano-Osorio, M... [et al.]. Treating Gingival Recessions Using Coronally Advanced Flap or Tunnel Techniques with Autografts or Polymeric Substitutes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Polymers 2022, 14, 1453. []es_ES
dc.descriptionThis work was supported bythe Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and European Regional Development Fund [Project PID2020-114694RB-100 MINECO/AEI/FEDER/UE]. M. Toledano-Osorio holds a FPU fellowship from the Ministry of Universities (FPU20/00450).es_ES
dc.description.abstractGingival recessions are a prevalent oral mucosa alteration. To solve this pathology, palatal mucosa or polymeric soft tissue substitutes are used when performing coronal advanced flap (CAF) or tunnel (TUN) surgical techniques. To evaluate which is the most successful approach, a literature review and meta-analysis were conducted. For the electronic search the National Library of Medicine, the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, EMBASE and WOS were used. Pooled data for the percentage of root coverage was collected and weighted means were calculated. Heterogeneity was determined using the Higgins (I2) statistic and a random-effects model was applied. Thirteen studies were included in the systematic review (12 randomized and 1 controlled clinical trials) in which both techniques (394 patients) were compared with a follow-up of 4 to 12 months. Galbraith and Baujat plots were used to control for the presence of potential outliers. After performing the meta-analysis (11 studies), the mean root coverage was similar when using the TUN or CAF techniques (p = 0.49). The only differences between the two were found for single recessions, where CAF offered a higher percentage of root coverage (mean difference = 4.98%; p = 0.006). There were no differences when applying an autograft or a polymeric substitute with either of the two tested surgical techniques (p = 0.445).es_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipMinistry of Economy and Competitivenesses_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipEuropean Regional Development Fund [MINECO/AEI/FEDER/UE] PID2020-114694RB-100es_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipMinistry of Universities FPU20/00450es_ES
dc.rightsAtribución 3.0 España*
dc.subjectConnective tissuees_ES
dc.subjectCoronal advanced flapes_ES
dc.subjectGingival recessiones_ES
dc.subjectGuided periodontal tissue regenerationes_ES
dc.subjectSurgical flapses_ES
dc.subjectSystematic reviewes_ES
dc.subjectTunnel techniquees_ES
dc.titleTreating Gingival Recessions Using Coronally Advanced Flap or Tunnel Techniques with Autografts or Polymeric Substitutes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysises_ES

Files in this item


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Atribución 3.0 España
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Atribución 3.0 España