Efficacy of acellular xenogeneic dermal matrix graft in the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the efficacy of acellular xenogeneic dermal matrix graft (AXDM) compared to connective tissue graft (CTG) in treating multiple gingival recessions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared AXDM and CTG. The selected studies were subjected to bias risk assessment, data extraction, and meta-analyses. Parameters such as gingival recession height, width, mean percentage of root coverage, and complete root coverage were analyzed.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs involving 146 patients were included. The meta-analyses indicated that CTG was statistically superior to AXDM in reducing gingival recession height at the final follow-up (mean difference: -0.104 mm, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.180-0.028, p = 0.008) and width at the final follow-up (mean difference: -0.285 mm, 95% CI: -0.541-0.030, p = 0.029). CTG also demonstrated a significantly higher mean percentage of root coverage at the 6-month follow-up (difference in means: -2.761 mm, 95% CI: -4.932-0.590, p = 0.013) and a higher percentage of complete root coverage at the 6-month follow-up (odds Ratio [OR]: 0.598, 95% CI: 0.4-0.892, p = 0.012) compared to AXDM. However, there was no significant difference in the number of teeth with complete root coverage between CTG and AXDM (OR: 1.610, 95% CI: 0.983-2.636, p = 0.058) and aesthetic outcomes (mean difference: 0.148, 95% CI: -0.277-0.573, p = 0.494).

CONCLUSIONS

CTG is more effective than AXDM in treating multiple gingival recessions. This is evidenced by significant reductions in gingival recession height and width, a higher mean percentage of root coverage, and a greater percentage of complete root coverage at the 6-month follow-up.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In some clinical situations an alternative to CTG is required for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions. AXDM, despite presenting clinical outcomes that are not as satisfactory as CTG, can be used for this purpose.

Are implant-supported removable partial dentures a suitable treatment for partially edentulous patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

A consensus on the clinical performance of implant-supported removable partial dentures (ISRPDs) is lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical performance of ISRPDs in terms of the implant survival rates, marginal bone loss, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Four electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) were independently searched by 2 reviewers for articles published up to December 2020. A single-arm meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the implant survival rates and marginal bone loss by using the R program. The Cochrane collaboration tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for non-RCT studies.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were included, with a total of 334 participants and a mean age of 58 years. The participants received a total of 581 dental implants, 475 conventional and 106 mini-implants. All included studies reported implant survival rate above 90% (range: 92% to 100%). Meta-analysis indicated a high proportion of implant survival rates of 3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2% to 5%) and a low mean raw score of marginal bone loss 0.98 mm (CI: 0.61 to 1.36 mm). Compared with conventional RPDs, improved patient quality of life and satisfaction were reported by studies that evaluated ISRPDs. RCT studies exhibited a low risk of bias for most domains, while most non-RCT studies were classified as good quality.

CONCLUSIONS

ISRPDs exhibited high implant survival rates and acceptable bone loss with improvement in the quality of life and satisfaction of patients when compared with conventional RPDs. Therefore, they can be considered suitable for the rehabilitation of partially edentulous patients.