2009). This surgical modification of CAF (MCAF), without releasing incisions (Zucchelli & De Sanctis 2000), was used as control in two trials (Aroca et?al. 2009, Ozcelik et?al. 2011) and as test in one previously mentioned trial (Zucchelli et?al. 2009). When MCAF was used as control, test was represented by MCAF plus autologous diglyceride
platelet rich fibrin clot (PRF) (Aroca et?al. 2009) or variation of suspended sutures to buttons applied on buccal tooth surfaces (Ozcelik et?al. 2011). Recessions were also surgically treated with a variation of the supra-periosteal techniques/tunnel flap (modified coronally advanced tunnel, MCAT) plus connective tissue graft (CTG) (Allen 1994, Azzi et?al. 1998, Zabalegui et?al. 1999): in these studies, MCAT plus CTG as control was compared to MCAT plus CTG plus EMD (Aroca et?al. 2010), to CAF plus CTG (Tozum et?al. 2005), and to MCAT plus a bio-resorbable collagen matrix (Aroca et?al. 2013). CRC after PPP varied from 23.8 to 89.3%. No overall information on CRC at patient/site level could be calculated due to the paucity of the reporting of such outcome. PRC was 86.27% (95% CI: 80.71�C91.83; p?<?0.01) (Fig.?2). RecRed showed a WMD of 2.53?mm (95% CI: 2.14�C2.91; p?<?0.01) (Fig.?2). KT gain at the <a href="http://www.selleckchem.com/products/AZD0530.html
">AZD0530 order end of the study was 0.35?mm (95% CI: ?0.01 to 0.72; p?<?0.06). Miller class III recessions were treated in just one trial (Aroca et?al. 2010). Control sites were treated with MCAT plus CTG, while test sites received also EMD. After 12?months, CRC was achieved in 8 out of 20 surgeries in both test and control sites. In five subjects, CRC of all recessions was achieved in both sides. PRC corresponded to 82% in test group and 83% in control group; RecRed was 2.7?��?1.1 and 2.6?��?1.6?mm respectively; KT gain was 0.1?��?1.8 and 0.1?��?1.7?mm respectively. Aesthetic and patient-centred outcomes are summarized in Table?4. Adequate <a href="http://www.selleckchem.com/products/GDC-0941.html
">selleck chemicals methods of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessors and management of incomplete outcome data were reported in five articles (Zucchelli et?al. 2009, Aroca et?al. 2010, 2013, Ozcelik et?al. 2011, Ozturan et?al. 2011). In one trial (Cordaro et?al. 2012), allocation concealment was not specified. Allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessors were not specified in three trials (Tozum et?al. 2005, Aroca et?al. 2009, Thombre et?al. 2013) (Table?5). In general, overall quality of methods was moderate, with the majority of the studies scoring at least 50%. Four trials achieved a score above 70% (Zucchelli et?al. 2009, Aroca et?al. 2010, Ozcelik et?al. 2011, Ozturan et?al. 2011). Adherence to Consort guidelines were rarely reported and no information on masking of statisticians were reported. In terms of outcomes, unclear or absent reporting of (i) CRC at patient/area level, (ii) aesthetic evaluation and (iii) patient-centred outcomes was a frequent finding.