Table 2 General characteristics of included studies
Author & Year | Recession Type | Recession location | No. of Patients | Smokers | No. of defects (Test/Control) | Age Range | Male/Female | Follow-up (Months) | Percentage of Root Coverage (%) | Authors conclusion | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Test | Control | ||||||||||
[20] | Miller’s Class I or Class II GR | Maxillary anterior teeth region | 23 | excluded | 45 | > 18 y | M;18 F;5 | 3,6 | 36% | 56% | It showed better root coverage when PRF or AM were used in conjunction with CAF as compared to CAF alone. |
[21] | Miller’s class I and class II GR | Maxillary anterior teeth region | 45 | excluded | 45 | 21–53 y | M:36 F:9 | 6 | NR | NR | CAF used with AM showed favorable results in the treatment of Miller’s class I and II GR. |
[22] | Miller’s Class I GR | Maxillary and nine mandibular defects | 10 | excluded | 20 | NR | M:10 | 6,18 | NR | NR | AM demonstrated a higher percentage of root coverage than PRF when both were combined with CAF. |
[16] | Single bilateral Miller’s Class I or Class II GR | NR | 12 | excluded | 24 | 28-40y | NR | 1,3,6 | 22% | 28% | CM showed more root coverage with a reduction in recession depth while AM showed more CAL gain. |
[23] | Miller’s Class I and II recession defects | Maxillary anterior and premolars | 30 | excluded | 30 | 20–50 | NR | 3 | NR | NR | CAF combined with AM and DFDBA showed better results compared to CAF alone in Miller’s Class I and II GRs. |
[24] | buccal/labial vertical GR defects more than or equal to 2 mm. | NR | 9 | Excluded | 22 | 30–55 y | M:8 F:1 | 3,6 | NR | NR | Both FGM and AM showed the same regenerative potential. |
[25] | Miller’s class I and class II | NR | 15 | excluded | 30 | NR | NR | 1, 3,6 | NR | NR | CAF alone showed better results regarding recession reduction in Miller’s class I & II GRs than CAF with AM. |
[15] | Bilateral Miller class I GR | Maxillary and mandibular canines | 15 | Excluded | 30 | 21–52 y | M:5 F:10 | 6 | 76.47% | 56.94% | CAF with both PRF and AM can be successfully used to treat class I GR with AM gives better outcomes. |
[26] | bilateral Miller’s class I and II GR | Maxillary and mandibular anterior and premolar regions | 15 | excluded | 60 | 23–55 y | M:11 F:4 | 3,6 | NR | NR | AM with the CAF showed reliable root coverage with favorable healing outcomes as compared to CAF alone. |
[14] | Miller’s class I and II GR | Maxillary and mandibular anterior and premolar regions | 22 | excluded | 71 | > 18 y | NR | 3,6 | 67% | 54% | AM may substitute CTG in root coverage procedures and RD reduction. |
[27] | Miller class I and II | NR | 10 | excluded | 20 | 20–50 y | NR | 6 | NR | NR | Both AM and CM can be safely used in the treatment of GR defects and to augment the gingival phenotype. |
[28] | Bilateral Miller’s class I GR defect | NR | 10 | excluded | 20 | 18–40 y | M:5 F:5 | 3,6 | NR | NR | CAF with AM can be used for treating Miller’s Class I GR defects. |
[29] | Miller’s class I and II GR | NR | 30 | Excluded | 30 | 18–55 y | M:15 F:15 | 3,6 | NR | NR | Both AM and PRF were equally effective in terms of recession coverage and increased WKG. |
[30] | Isolated bilateral Miller’s class I GR defects | Maxillary and mandibular anterior and premolar regions | 51 | Excluded | 102 | 18–40 y | NR | 6 | 85% | 81% | CAF with AM proved to be fruitful in comparison with CAF alone. |
[31] | Miller class I and II buccal recessions | Maxillary and mandibular anterior and premolar regions | 11 | excluded | 30 | 34 ± 12 y | NR | 1,3,6 | 63.18% | 75.54% | AM with CAF may be relatively comparable with gold standard SCTG with CAF for the treatment of Miller class I and II GR. |
[32] | Single Miller’s Class I or Class II GR | NR | 24 | Excluded | 24 | 20–60 y | NR | 3,6 | 77% | 62% | AM showed more root coverage than PRF. |
[33] | Isolated bilateral Miller’s Class I or Class II GR | NR | 12 | Excluded | 24 | 18–40 y | F:7 M:5 | 3,6 | 73.31% | 59.03% | Collagen membrane and AM are equally efficacious. |
[34] | Single Miller’s Class I or Class II GR | Maxillary anterior, premolar, and molar regions | 24 | Excluded | 24 | 22–41 y | F:4 M:20 | 3,6 | NR | NR | AM with a microsurgical approach showed better root coverage outcomes and stable results at the end of the study period. |
[17] | Single bilateral Miller’s Class I or Class II GR | NR | 9 | NR | 18 | NR | NR | 3,6 | NR | NR | The combination of CAF with AM provided additional outcomes in the treatment of GR. |
[35] | bilaterally localized Miller’s class I or II GR | Maxillary and mandibular anterior region | 5 | excluded | 10 | 30–40 y | NR | 3 | NR | NR | AM with CAF did not influence the clinical outcome of the root coverage procedure. |
[18] | Single Miller’s Class I GR | Maxillary and mandibular sites | 16 | Excluded | 20 | 20–45 y | M:10 | 6,18 | NR | NR | AM showed better root coverage as compared to PRF. |
[36] | Single Miller’s Class I or Class II GR | Maxillary anterior and premolars region | 30 | Excluded | 30 | 18–55 y | NR | 3,6,9 | At 6 months 67.6% At 9 months 64.27% | At 6 months 65.27% At 9months 57.0% | AM was more effective in terms of increasing WKT. |