You can manage bookmarks using lists, please log in to your user account for this.
Media type:
E-Article
Title:
Bayesian network meta‐analysis of root coverage procedures: ranking efficacy and identification of best treatment
Contributor:
Buti, Jacopo;
Baccini, Michela;
Nieri, Michele;
La Marca, Michele;
Pini‐Prato, Giovan P.
Published:
Wiley, 2013
Published in:
Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 40 (2013) 4, Seite 372-386
Language:
English
DOI:
10.1111/jcpe.12028
ISSN:
0303-6979;
1600-051X
Origination:
Footnote:
Description:
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Aims</jats:title><jats:p>The aim of this work was to conduct a <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">B</jats:styled-content>ayesian network meta‐analysis (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">NM</jats:styled-content>) of randomized controlled trials (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">RCT</jats:styled-content>s) to establish a ranking in efficacy and the best technique for coronally advanced flap (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">CAF</jats:styled-content>)‐based root coverage procedures.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Material and Methods</jats:title><jats:p>A literature search on PubMed, Cochrane libraries, <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">EMBASE</jats:styled-content>, and hand‐searched journals until June 2012 was conducted to identify <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">RCT</jats:styled-content>s on treatments of <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">M</jats:styled-content>iller <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">C</jats:styled-content>lass <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">I</jats:styled-content> and <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">II</jats:styled-content> gingival recessions with at least 6 months of follow‐up. The treatment outcomes were recession reduction (RecRed), clinical attachment gain (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">CAL</jats:styled-content>gain), keratinized tissue gain (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">KT</jats:styled-content>gain), and complete root coverage (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">CRC</jats:styled-content>).</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>Twenty‐nine studies met the inclusion criteria, 20 of which were classified as at high risk of bias. The <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">CAF</jats:styled-content>+connective tissue graft (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">CTG</jats:styled-content>) combination ranked highest in effectiveness for RecRed (Probability of being the best = 40%) and <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">CAL</jats:styled-content>gain (Pr = 33%); <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">CAF</jats:styled-content>+enamel matrix derivative (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">EMD</jats:styled-content>) was slightly better for <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">CRC</jats:styled-content>;<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case"> CAF</jats:styled-content>+Collagen Matrix (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">CM</jats:styled-content>) appeared effective for <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">KT</jats:styled-content>gain (Pr = 69%). Network inconsistency was low for all outcomes excluding <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">CAL</jats:styled-content>gain.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title><jats:p><jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">CAF</jats:styled-content>+<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">CTG</jats:styled-content> might be considered the gold standard in root coverage procedures. The low amount of inconsistency gives support to the reliability of the present findings.</jats:p></jats:sec>