Xenogeneic collagen matrix versus connective tissue graft for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract A systematic review and meta‐analysis was performed to understand the efficacy of xenogeneic collagen matrix (CMX) compared with connective tissue graft (CTG) for the treatment of multiple adjacent gingival recessions (MAGRs). A literature search was performed for published randomized contr...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Mohammed A. AlSarhan, Reham Al Jasser, Mohammad Abdullah Tarish, Anas I. AlHuzaimi, Hamad Alzoman
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2019-10-01
Series:Clinical and Experimental Dental Research
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.210
id doaj-cf9699d991494326ba7b619c0417de4d
record_format Article
spelling doaj-cf9699d991494326ba7b619c0417de4d2020-11-25T01:29:08ZengWileyClinical and Experimental Dental Research2057-43472019-10-015556657910.1002/cre2.210Xenogeneic collagen matrix versus connective tissue graft for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: A systematic review and meta‐analysisMohammed A. AlSarhan0Reham Al Jasser1Mohammad Abdullah Tarish2Anas I. AlHuzaimi3Hamad Alzoman4Department of Periodontics & Community Dentistry, College of Dentistry King Saud University Riyadh Saudi ArabiaDepartment of Periodontics & Community Dentistry, College of Dentistry King Saud University Riyadh Saudi ArabiaDepartment of Preventive Dental Science ELM University Riyadh Saudi ArabiaCollege of Dentistry King Saud University Riyadh Saudi ArabiaDepartment of Periodontics & Community Dentistry, College of Dentistry King Saud University Riyadh Saudi ArabiaAbstract A systematic review and meta‐analysis was performed to understand the efficacy of xenogeneic collagen matrix (CMX) compared with connective tissue graft (CTG) for the treatment of multiple adjacent gingival recessions (MAGRs). A literature search was performed for published randomized controlled trials in adult patients (≥18 years old) with Multiple Adjacent Miller class I and II gingival recessions (MAGRs). The assessments included recession depth, Recession width, complete root coverage, mean root coverage, probing depth, clinical attachment level, and keratinized tissue width. Pooled data were analyzed using fixed‐ and random‐effects models, and Forest plots were constructed. Heterogeneity within studies was calculated to assess publication bias. Four randomized controlled trials were included based on the eligibility criteria. Although the recession depth, complete root coverage, and mean root coverage were significantly lower with CMX (p = .017 and p = .001, p = .001, respectively), there was no statistically significant difference in the Recession width between CMX and CTG (p = .203). CMX showed significantly lower Probing Depth than CTG (p = .023); however, no significant difference in clinical attachment level (p = .060) and keratinized tissue width (p = .052) was observed between the groups. Owing to the heterogeneity in the included studies, firm conclusions cannot be drawn regarding the noninferiority of CMX compared with CTG. Long‐term studies are therefore needed to conclusively establish the relative efficacy of CMX in MAGR.https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.210collagen matrixconnective tissue graftgingival recessionmeta‐analysissystematic review
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Mohammed A. AlSarhan
Reham Al Jasser
Mohammad Abdullah Tarish
Anas I. AlHuzaimi
Hamad Alzoman
spellingShingle Mohammed A. AlSarhan
Reham Al Jasser
Mohammad Abdullah Tarish
Anas I. AlHuzaimi
Hamad Alzoman
Xenogeneic collagen matrix versus connective tissue graft for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Clinical and Experimental Dental Research
collagen matrix
connective tissue graft
gingival recession
meta‐analysis
systematic review
author_facet Mohammed A. AlSarhan
Reham Al Jasser
Mohammad Abdullah Tarish
Anas I. AlHuzaimi
Hamad Alzoman
author_sort Mohammed A. AlSarhan
title Xenogeneic collagen matrix versus connective tissue graft for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_short Xenogeneic collagen matrix versus connective tissue graft for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_full Xenogeneic collagen matrix versus connective tissue graft for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_fullStr Xenogeneic collagen matrix versus connective tissue graft for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_full_unstemmed Xenogeneic collagen matrix versus connective tissue graft for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_sort xenogeneic collagen matrix versus connective tissue graft for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
publisher Wiley
series Clinical and Experimental Dental Research
issn 2057-4347
publishDate 2019-10-01
description Abstract A systematic review and meta‐analysis was performed to understand the efficacy of xenogeneic collagen matrix (CMX) compared with connective tissue graft (CTG) for the treatment of multiple adjacent gingival recessions (MAGRs). A literature search was performed for published randomized controlled trials in adult patients (≥18 years old) with Multiple Adjacent Miller class I and II gingival recessions (MAGRs). The assessments included recession depth, Recession width, complete root coverage, mean root coverage, probing depth, clinical attachment level, and keratinized tissue width. Pooled data were analyzed using fixed‐ and random‐effects models, and Forest plots were constructed. Heterogeneity within studies was calculated to assess publication bias. Four randomized controlled trials were included based on the eligibility criteria. Although the recession depth, complete root coverage, and mean root coverage were significantly lower with CMX (p = .017 and p = .001, p = .001, respectively), there was no statistically significant difference in the Recession width between CMX and CTG (p = .203). CMX showed significantly lower Probing Depth than CTG (p = .023); however, no significant difference in clinical attachment level (p = .060) and keratinized tissue width (p = .052) was observed between the groups. Owing to the heterogeneity in the included studies, firm conclusions cannot be drawn regarding the noninferiority of CMX compared with CTG. Long‐term studies are therefore needed to conclusively establish the relative efficacy of CMX in MAGR.
topic collagen matrix
connective tissue graft
gingival recession
meta‐analysis
systematic review
url https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.210
work_keys_str_mv AT mohammedaalsarhan xenogeneiccollagenmatrixversusconnectivetissuegraftforthetreatmentofmultiplegingivalrecessionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT rehamaljasser xenogeneiccollagenmatrixversusconnectivetissuegraftforthetreatmentofmultiplegingivalrecessionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT mohammadabdullahtarish xenogeneiccollagenmatrixversusconnectivetissuegraftforthetreatmentofmultiplegingivalrecessionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT anasialhuzaimi xenogeneiccollagenmatrixversusconnectivetissuegraftforthetreatmentofmultiplegingivalrecessionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT hamadalzoman xenogeneiccollagenmatrixversusconnectivetissuegraftforthetreatmentofmultiplegingivalrecessionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
_version_ 1725098377079685120