Treating Gingival Recessions Using Coronally Advanced Flap or Tunnel Techniques with Autografts or Polymeric Substitutes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Metadatos
Afficher la notice complèteAuteur
Toledano Osorio, Manuel; Muñoz Soto, Esther; Toledano Pérez, Manuel; Vallecillo Rivas, Marta; Vallecillo, Cristina; Ramos García, Pablo; Osorio Ruiz, RaquelEditorial
MDPI
Materia
Connective tissue Coronal advanced flap Gingival recession Guided periodontal tissue regeneration Surgical flaps Systematic review Tunnel technique
Date
2022-04-02Referencia bibliográfica
Toledano-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. [https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14071453]
Patrocinador
Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness; European Regional Development Fund [MINECO/AEI/FEDER/UE] PID2020-114694RB-100; Ministry of Universities FPU20/00450Résumé
Gingival 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).