> Details

Buti, Jacopo; Baccini, Michela; Nieri, Michele; La Marca, Michele; Pini‐Prato, Giovan P.

Bayesian network meta‐analysis of root coverage procedures: ranking efficacy and identification of best treatment

Reference
management

Bookmarks

Remove from
bookmarks

Share this on Whatsapp

Close

Bookmarks



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>