CONNECTIVE TISSUE GRAFT WITH OR WITHOUT ENAMEL MATRIX DERIVATIVE FOR TREATING GINGIVAL RECESSION DEFECTS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Objectives The aim of this systematic review is to compare the root coverage outcomes of using a connective tissue graft (CTG) with and without the application of enamel matrix derivative (EMD). Methodology An electronic search was performed up to July 2020 in 4 databases, including Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Central. Human clinical studies with data on comparing outcomes of root coverage using CTG with and without the application of EMD were included. Meta-analyses for the recorded parameters were performed and the weighted mean difference (WMD) between the 2 groups and 95% confidence interval (CI) were reported. Results Nine clinical studies were selected for inclusion in this review. The WMD of clinical attachment level gain was 0.78 mm (95% CI of 0.23-1.34 mm, P = .005) and the WMD of recession depth reduction was 0.28 mm (95% CI of 0.06-0.51 mm, P = .01), favoring the CTG + EMD approach. However, the comparisons for the percentage of complete root coverage and mean root coverage between the 2 approaches were not statistically significant. Conclusion Although the use of a CTG with and without the application of EMD in root coverage procedures achieved a similar percentage of complete root coverage and mean root coverage, the addition of EMD to CTG may improve the outcome of recession depth reduction and clinical attachment level gain.

Automated summary

The use of a CTG combined with EMD in root coverage procedures showed better results in terms of attachment level gain and recession depth reduction. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the two approaches in terms of complete root coverage percentage and mean root coverage.