Next Article in Journal
Polymer-Dispersed Cholesteric Liquid Crystal under Homeotropic Anchoring: Electrically Induced Structures with λ1/2-Disclination
Next Article in Special Issue
Retention Capacity of Original Denture Adhesives and White Brands for Conventional Complete Dentures: An In Vitro Study
Previous Article in Journal
Development and Applications of Hydrogel-Based Triboelectric Nanogenerators: A Mini-Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Structural Integrity and Fracture Behaviour of Teeth Restored with PEEK and Lithium-Disilicate Glass Ceramic Crowns
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Polymers
Volume 14
Issue 7
10.3390/polym14071453
polymers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Treating Gingival Recessions Using Coronally Advanced Flap or Tunnel Techniques with Autografts or Polymeric Substitutes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Manuel Toledano-Osorio
†,
Esther Muñoz-Soto
†,
Manuel Toledano
*,
Marta Vallecillo-Rivas
,
Cristina Vallecillo
,
Pablo Ramos-García
and
Raquel Osorio
Faculty of Dentistry, Colegio Máximo de Cartuja s/n, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Polymers 2022, 14(7), 1453; https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14071453
Submission received: 14 March 2022 / Revised: 30 March 2022 / Accepted: 31 March 2022 / Published: 2 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Polymeric Materials for Dental Applications II)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Gingival recessions are a prevalent oral mucosa alteration. To solve this pathology, palatal mucosa or polymeric soft tissue substitutes are used when performing coronal advanced flap (CAF) or tunnel (TUN) surgical techniques. To evaluate which is the most successful approach, a literature review and meta-analysis were conducted. For the electronic search the National Library of Medicine, the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, EMBASE and WOS were used. Pooled data for the percentage of root coverage was collected and weighted means were calculated. Heterogeneity was determined using the Higgins (I2) statistic and a random-effects model was applied. Thirteen studies were included in the systematic review (12 randomized and 1 controlled clinical trials) in which both techniques (394 patients) were compared with a follow-up of 4 to 12 months. Galbraith and Baujat plots were used to control for the presence of potential outliers. After performing the meta-analysis (11 studies), the mean root coverage was similar when using the TUN or CAF techniques (p = 0.49). The only differences between the two were found for single recessions, where CAF offered a higher percentage of root coverage (mean difference = 4.98%; p = 0.006). There were no differences when applying an autograft or a polymeric substitute with either of the two tested surgical techniques (p = 0.445).

1. Introduction

Gingival recession (GR) is defined as the apical migration of the gingival margin surpassing the cement-enamel junction (CEJ). This may cause the exposure of the root surface to the oral environment [1,2]. The high incidence of this defect, approximately 54% and 100% in young adults and middle-aged adults, respectively, can be attributed to a complex pathophysiology divided into direct causes and predisposing factors [3,4]. Chronic inflammatory periodontal disease, occlusal trauma, chronic trauma, especially aggressive tooth brushing, and periodontal treatment can cause this condition [3,5,6]. Moreover, some factors, such as tooth anatomy and position, decreased alveolar bone crest thickness, bone dehiscence, soft tissue thickness, muscle traction, frenulum insertion or orthodontic treatment, favor its development [3,5,6].
GRs are normally associated with the loss of periodontal tissues [7]. Recently, the term “gingival recession” has begun to be replaced by “periodontal recession”, which is considered to represent a more precise definition of this pathology [7]. As a result of the presence of periodontal recession, dentin hypersensitivity may occur. Root surfaces are exposed to the oral environment and may develop carious and non-carious cervical lesions [8]. In addition, these alterations are esthetically unacceptable for many patients [8]. Therefore, the indications for the treatment of gingival recessions may be associated with esthetic requirements, inadequate gingival width, root hypersensitivity and difficulty for optimal hygiene [9,10,11].
The ultimate goal of periodontal recession treatment is to cover the recession defect. Thus, most efforts are focused on developing techniques that provide root coverage [12]. Gingival recession treatment can be considered a multifactorial treatment approach comprising different surgical techniques and graft materials [12]. In order to obtain complete root coverage (CRC), two different surgery techniques are the most frequently employed: the coronal advanced flap (CAF) [13,14,15,16] and the tunnel technique (TUN) [17,18] (Figure 1). Within the range of adjunctive scaffolds or graft materials available, a connective tissue graft (CTG) is considered the gold standard [19,20,21]. It seems that a CTG may act as a biological filler, improving the adaptation and the stability of the flap to the roots of the teeth. Therefore, a high probability of achieving complete root coverage together with increased soft tissue thickness has previously been attributed to CTG-based approaches [20]. Polymeric substitutes (PolS) have also been proposed [21,22]. These polymeric materials are usually biological and degradable [21,22], and provide a variable, porous surface with an interconnected surface area for direct tissue regeneration [23].
It is worth noting that a CTG is usually acquired from the palatal mucosa, and pain, inflammation and, sometimes, infection have been reported as secondary adverse effects for the patient [4,19,20].
Periodontal plastic procedures are complex, technique-sensitive interventions, so it is important to identify which ones produce the best results [24]. Several studies have compared the efficacy of TUN and CAF + CTG without finding any statistical differences between the two techniques [25,26,27,28]. Currently, new clinical studies are being carried out with a longer follow-up, which could help clarify the clinical differences between the two techniques.
The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the CAF and TUN techniques in conjunction with CTG or PolS to establish which one provides the most effective root coverage for the treatment of unitary or multiple gingival recessions by reviewing the existing literature.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Registration and Protocol Development

Before conducting this study, a proposal for this systematic review focused on the coronally advanced flap technique versus the tunnel technique for gingival recession treatment was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), and an identification number was given (CRD42021258170). Likewise, the systematic review was executed according to PRISMA-P [28], following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [29] and using the PRISMA [30] checklist to increase the transparency and quality of the review.

2.2. PICO Question and Focused Question

○
Population (P): Patients presenting single or multiple gingival recessions classified as Miller I, II or III or RT1 or RT2 with an indication of mucogingival surgical treatment (esthetic requirements, hypersensitivity, soft tissue deficiencies).
○
Intervention (I): Gingival recessions (single or multiple) treated with the coronally advanced flap technique at periodontal sites.
○
Comparison (C): Gingival recessions (single or multiple) treated with the tunnel technique at periodontal sites.
○
Outcome (O): Percentage of root coverage.
The focused question is: in patients requiring mucogingival surgery, for unitary or multiple recessions, would it be more effective, in terms of the percentage of root coverage, to perform a CAF or a TUN technique when using a CTG or a PolS?

2.3. Information Sources and Screening Process

Two researchers (M.T.-O. and E.M.-S.) performed an electronic search including studies published up to May 2021 in four online databases: the National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE by PubMed), the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, EMBASE and Web of Science (WOS). A filter was applied in order to search only for articles written in English. Electronic databases and search strategies are provided in Table 1. Additionally, a hand search was conducted to identify manuscripts in previous reviews comparing these two mucogingival techniques for the treatment of gingival recessions. The searches were updated in October 2021.

2.4. Eligibility Criteria

Articles meeting the following criteria were included in our systematic review: (1) randomized clinical trials (RCT) or controlled clinical trials (CCT); (2) adult subjects with single or multiple gingival recessions treated with the coronally advanced flap technique compared to those treated with the tunnel technique and using a CTG or a PolS; (3) a follow-up period of at least 4 months; (4) outcomes reported as a percentage of root coverage. Manuscripts not meeting these study criteria were excluded. In addition, some exclusion criteria were also established: (1) in vitro and pre-clinical studies, cohort studies and systematic reviews; (2) studies with a less than 10 patients; (3) mucogingival surgeries combined with bone regeneration techniques; (4) no clinical outcomes clearly reported.

2.5. Study Selection, Data Extraction and Assessment of Risk of Bias

Two independent researchers (M.T.-O. and E.M.-S.) performed the study selection. In case of disagreements, it was discussed with a third researcher (M.T.) who determined the inclusion or exclusion of the study.
Data extraction was also performed by two investigators (M.T.-O. and E.M.-S.) and the following information was obtained: (1) authors; (2) year of publication; (3) study design; (4) follow-up time; (5) type of gingival recessions; (6) surgical technique and patients; (7) primary outcome (percentage of root coverage); (8) secondary outcomes (complete root coverage, CRC; width keratinized tissue gain, KTW; red esthetic score, RES).
The risk of bias in the included RCTs was evaluated following the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool, RoB 2 [31]. After analyzing different domains of bias, studies were classified as “high risk”, “some concerns” or “low risk”. The ROBINS-I tool [32], with specified bias domains, was employed for the assessment of the CCTs. Studies were judged as having a “critical risk of bias”, “serious risk of bias”, “moderate risk of bias” or “low risk of bias”.

2.6. Data Analysis

A statistical analysis was performed to compare the efficacy of the coronally advanced flap technique with the tunnel technique in terms of root coverage (%) at time points ranging from 4 to 12 months. Weighted means with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated, including the inverse variance (IV) and total sample size. In addition, a subgroups analysis was performed in order to compare multiple vs. single recession and connective tissue graft vs. polymeric substitutes. A subgroup analysis was also employed in order to analyze the effect of both techniques at 6 and 12 months independently. An inter-group analysis was performed in order to compare CTG with PolS when combined with the TUN or CF technique. The variation, or heterogeneity, across the included studies was assessed using the Higgins (I2) statistic. Due to the existing heterogeneity from combining the studies, a random-effects model was applied in order to analyze effect sizes. Statistical significance was set at 0.05. RevMan 5.4 (The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) was used for data analysis and to produce the funnel plots for representing publication bias and heterogeneity among the included studies.
Ad hoc Galbraith [33] and Baujat [34] plots were constructed using Stata 16.1 (Stata Corp, College Station, TX, USA) in order to explore the relative contribution of each primary-level study to overall heterogeneity in more depth and to control for the presence of potential outliers.

3. Results

3.1. Search Results

A total of 253 articles were obtained after conducting the electronic search. These findings were complemented with a manual search, resulting in one more article. After the duplicates were removed, the title and abstract of 60 articles were read, and the full text of 31 articles was reviewed. Eighteen articles were excluded following the defined eligibility criteria. Finally, 13 articles were included in this systematic review and 11 of them were used for the meta-analysis. Two studies were excluded from the meta-analysis for the following reasons: (1) Zuhr et al., 2021 [35] because the study groups were not comparable; (2) Bhatavadekar et al., 2019 [36] because of incomplete data reporting. The inclusion process based on the PRISMA guidelines is reported in Figure 2.

3.2. Study Characteristics

Twelve studies included in the review were RCTs, and only one was a CCT. Each study compared the CAF technique with the TUN technique, eight with a connective tissue graft (CTG) [25,26,36,37,38,39,40,41], four with a PolS (acellular dermal matrix) [42,43,44,45] and one study employed the CAF technique with an enamel matrix derivative (EDM) as the test group and the TUN technique with a CTG as the control group [45]. The main characteristics of the studies included in this systematic review and meta-analysis are displayed in Table 2. From the thirteen articles included in this systematic review, eight of them specified that the adults had been older than 18 years; one study included patients over 16 years old; and the other four studies did not clarify this point, simply reporting that the patients were adults.

3.3. Quality Assessment and Risk of Bias

The quality evaluation of the included studies, and the risk of bias assessment using ROBBINS-II (Cochrane recommendations) for the RCTs and ROBINS-I for the CCT, are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4, respectively.

3.4. Primary and Secondary Outcomes

A total of 394 patients with single or multiple gingival recessions were surgically treated with the CAF technique (198 patients) or the TUN technique (196 patients). When the CAF group was compared to the TUN group, the percentage of root coverage was similar for both groups (p = 0.49) with a mean difference of 2.93% (ranging from −5.46 to 11.31; 95% CI). The heterogeneity was I2 = 93% (Figure 5a).
When comparing these two techniques separately for single and multiple gingival recessions, the root coverage was significantly higher for the CAF group when treating single recessions (p = 0.006) with a mean difference of 4.98% (ranging from 1.43 to 8.53; 95% CI) (Figure 5b). A non-significant difference was found for multiple recessions (mean difference: 1.05%; ranging from −19.53 to 21.62; 95% CI) (Figure 5c).
Similarly, there were no differences between the two surgical techniques when either a connective tissue graft or a PolS was applied. The mean difference between the percentage of root coverage was 0.92% (ranging from −10.35 to 12.20; 95% CI) (Figure 5d) and 6.45% (ranging from −1.19 to 14.09; 95% CI) (Figure 5e) for CTG and PolS, respectively.
A random-effects model was applied to all of the analyses performed. The systematic heterogeneity of the included studies is represented in a funnel plot graph (Figure 6).
Galbraith (Figure 7) and Baujat (Figure 8) plots showed that Tozüm et al. [41] has to be considered as an important outlier. This primary-level study disproportionately contributed to overall heterogeneity, since it was the most influential primary-level study in our meta-analysis. The most relevant salient characteristic of this study was its publication date (i.e., 2005). If Tozüm et al. [41] is excluded from the analysis, two main results are encountered: (i) when comparing the percentage of root coverage attained with TUN vs. CAF, the root coverage was significantly higher (about 4.93%) for the CAF group (p = 0.007)(Figure 9); (ii) after inter-group analysis, it is evidenced that there was no significant difference in the percentage of root coverage when using CTG or PolS (p = 0.445), regardless of the surgical technique employed (Figure 10).
Regarding the secondary outcomes, CRC was the only outcome investigated by all of the studies in this review. Only Zuhr et al. [35] and Gobbato et al. [40] reported higher frequency of CRC for TUN than CAF. The rest of the studies included in this systematic review found a superior rate of CRC for CAF (100% to 52.6%) than TUN (89.5% to 25%). Regarding KTW, only seven studies examined this parameter. Six of them [25,35,38,39,40,45] declared a higher KTW for the TUN group (2.6 mm to 0.33 mm) compared to the CAF (1.68 mm to −0.36 mm) group. Only Ozenci et al. [42] reported that KTW was higher for the CAF group (1.25 mm) than the TUN (0.87 mm) group. The RES was evaluated by five of the included studies. Zuhr et al. [35] found superior results for TUN (9.06) than CAF (6.94); in contrast, the rest of these studies [25,38,39,42] reported lower esthetic results for the TUN technique (9.3–7.3) than the CAF technique (9.3–8.3).

4. Discussion

Over the last decades, numerous periodontal plastic surgery techniques have been proposed for treating gingival recessions [37,46]. The main objective of these procedures is to obtain complete root coverage with optimal integration and acceptable esthetics [17]. Root coverage technique indications can vary depending on whether the recession is single or multiple [18]. The coronal advancement flap technique with posterior modifications [13,14,15,16] is the most documented approach in the scientific literature [47]. In combination with a connective tissue graft, CAF has been considered the gold standard in the treatment of single recessions [48]. In addition, conventional CAF with and without vertical releasing incisions has been successfully used to treat multiple gingival recessions [49]. However, some anatomical conditions may limit its application, such as an insufficient amount of keratinized tissue, non-carious cervical lesions or a reduced vestibule depth [50]. These drawbacks indicate the need for further investigations in the search for alternative approaches.
Raetzke [51] proved in 1985 that envelope/tunnel techniques are an effective alternative treatment in root coverage for unitary and multiple recessions [4]. The tunnel technique is proposed as a minimally invasive, safe and predictable technique [42]. This approach consists of creating a partial thickness “envelope” allowing flap elevation and insertion of a CTG or a polymeric substitute without detachment of the papillary tissues and without vertical releasing incisions [17,52]. TUN has slowly gained in popularity as an option that does not affect the continuity of the interdental papilla in addition to better esthetic results, undisturbed blood supply and nutrition of the graft and a limited flap opening [18]. All of these advantages may result in faster healing and less postoperative morbidity [18,52].
The present systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to shed light to some yet unsolved clinical questions. The first one was a comparison of the effectiveness in terms of percentage of root coverage of the two different surgical techniques (CAF or TUN) using CTG or PolS when treating unitary or multiple gingival recessions. Several systematic reviews [4,47,53] have already studied and compared these techniques without reaching a common consensus or providing evidence on which technique produces a better clinical outcome. This lack of evidence may be due to the limited number of RCTs comparing the two techniques or the absence of a standardized surgical protocol among the clinical researchers. The protocols executed are quite heterogeneous in terms of variation in techniques and the soft tissue substitutes employed. This fact also contributes to the previously mentioned discrepancy. The heterogeneity in the literature regarding this topic may also be explained by the center effect and the surgeon’s ability in such a sensitive procedure [4,21,54].
From the reviewed literature, thirteen studies met the established eligible criteria to be included in our systematic review. Twelve were RCTs and only one was a CCT. Two RCTs [35,36] could not be included in the meta-analysis for not using a tissue substitute in the test group and not having SD available (Table 2). Thus, only ten RCTs and one CCT were included in the meta-analysis.
In the light of the results of our systematic review and meta-analysis, which included 394 patients, it can be stated that both techniques can be considered predictable. The outcomes in terms of root coverage ranged 61.24–99% and 56.07–97.3% for CAF and TUN, respectively. The difference between the two techniques, 2.93% (−5.46 to 11.31; 95% CI), though in favor of CAF, was not significant. Nevertheless, as shown by the Galbraith plot (Figure 7), the study by Tozüm et al. [41], which was the most influential primary-level study in our meta-analysis, should be considered an important outlier. This was also demonstrated by a Baujat analysis, as shown in Figure 8. For this reason, another meta-analysis was performed excluding Tozüm et al. [41]. The results, displayed in Figure 9, show that in this case CAF was superior to TUN (p = 0.007), and the difference in the percentage of root coverage was 4.93% (1.36 to 8.51; 95% CI).
For most of the secondary outcomes studied, differences in the absolute values reported by the studies were encountered, but not all of them were statistically significant. It was clear for CRC since most of the studies reported significant differences (double-fold) in favor of CAF with the exception of Zhur et al. [35], which found a higher frequency of CRC when using the TUN technique at all timepoints studied. In the case of KTW, there is still controversy. Only Gobbato et al. [40] and Ozenci et al. [42] found significant, but contradictory, differences. The first group found the TUN technique was superior (p = 0.002), whereas the second group was in favor of the CAF technique (p = 0.027). Regarding RES, only Ozenci et al. [42] reported a statistically significant difference, which in this case, was in favor of CAF (p = 0.034). There is not a clear explanation for these discrepancies. However, in general, it has been shown that the CAF technique may be considered as having superior results for these tested secondary outcomes.
Our subgroup analysis revealed that there was clear evidence for the benefits of using CAF instead of TUN when treating a single GR (p = 0.006). This result is in accordance with the suggestion made by Zuhr et al. [55], that discouraged TUN and recommended CAF, leaving the coronal part of the CTG exposed for GR deeper than 5mm [4]. One of the greatest advantages of the TUN technique is the mobility gained by the flap after tunneling the GRs. This does not occur when a single GR is treated, which reduces the efficacy of this technique, and may explain the primacy of CAF over TUN when treating single GRs.
The beneficial effect of applying a graft to treat GR is undeniable, however the question about the use of polymeric tissue substitutes in conjunction with either technique has yet to be answered. Bhatia et al., in a recent meta-analysis [56], showed that combining a CAF with a connective tissue graft or a PolS (collagen matrix) had a significantly higher probability of complete root coverage than a CAF alone. These results were supported by the findings of other authors [47,57]. From our results, soft tissue polymeric substitutes are a valid alternative to CTG (p = 0.445 after inter-group analysis). PolS have showed good clinical behavior, achieving a gain in gingival thickness and keratinized mucosa that is very similar to CTG. Palatal harvesting techniques play a crucial role in soft tissue augmentation procedures, but they are not free from disadvantages and complications [4,19,21]. An autogenous graft requires a donor area that will heal by secondary intention, increasing patient morbidity in terms of post-operative discomfort and procedural time [4,58]. In addition, graft harvesting may increase the risk of postoperative complications such as bleeding due to damage of the branches of the palatine artery, necrosis of the mucosa and hypo- or an-esthesia [19,59]. Therefore, the use of PolS should be encouraged.
In their last systematic review and meta-analysis, Cairo et al. [60] confirmed that CTG provided better results than a soft tissue substitute only in regards to some esthetic outcomes. They did not find differences in the esthetic results between CAF or TUN; thus, they suggested that the most likely effect of the grafting material on the esthetic aspect is related to something other than the flap design. This fact was also highlighted by Tavelli et al. [61] when comparing CAF vs. TUN in terms of the root coverage esthetic score.
Among the studies included in the present systematic review and meta-analysis, only three reported on the use of microsurgery [25,40,44]. Microsurgery has been claimed to facilitate complete root coverage in previous reports [62]. It can be observed in our modified Forest Plot (Figure 9) that the two studies [25,44] with the highest weights in the meta-analysis used microsurgery, meaning they provided both strong evidence and low variance in their results. These findings are, therefore, in line with the previously mentioned published data [62].
This study presents certain limitations. Firstly, the focus of the question was narrow, which is, in general, a drawback of systematic reviews. Secondly, the heterogeneity of our study was I2 = 93%, which is a relatively high value that may be due to the small sample sizes of the RCTs included in the meta-analysis. This effect has been named the “small-studies effect” [63,64]. However, it should be recognized that most of them were classified as having a low risk of bias. It is remarkable that when we repeated the meta-analysis without the outlier study [41], the heterogeneity of the studies was reduced to 40% (Figure 9). This is one of the more obvious examples of the outlier effect exerted in this study during the first analysis.
For these reasons, it should be necessary that researchers and clinicians make an effort to increase the number of RCTs regarding soft tissue surgeries and boost multicentric studies in order to increase the number of patients in those RCTs. It is also recommended that common protocols, follow-up periods and measured outcomes are established in order to improve the comparability of clinical studies. In addition, the CONSORT guidelines should be followed to lower the risk of bias in clinical trials. This should improve the quality of future systematic reviews and meta-analyses, increase the available evidence, and ultimately, upgrade the standard and the predictability of our treatments.

5. Conclusions

Considering the limitations of the present study, it can be concluded that there is some evidence indicating that CAF is more effective than TUN in terms of the percentage of root coverage. There are clear benefits in using CAF instead of TUN when treating a single GR. Both autograft and polymeric substitutes were equally effective when employed with any of the two tested surgical procedures.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.T.-O., E.M.-S., M.T., P.R.-G. and R.O.; formal analysis, M.T.-O., E.M.-S., M.T., P.R.-G. and R.O.; funding acquisition, M.T. and R.O.; investigation, M.T.-O., E.M.-S., M.T., M.V.-R., C.V., P.R.-G. and R.O.; methodology, M.T.-O., E.M.-S., M.T., M.V.-R., C.V. and R.O.; project administration, M.T. and R.O.; supervision, M.T. and R.O.; validation, M.T. and R.O.; visualization; M.T.-O., E.M.-S., M.T., M.V.-R., C.V. and R.O.; writing—original draft, M.T.-O., E.M.-S., M.T., M.V.-R., C.V. and R.O.; writing—review and editing, M.T.-O., E.M.-S., M.T., M.V.-R., C.V., P.R.-G. and R.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported bythe Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and European Regional Development Fund [Project PID2020-114694RB-100 MINECO/AEI/FEDER/UE]. M. Toledano-Osorio holds a FPU fellowship from the Ministry of Universities (FPU20/00450).

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Pini-Prato, G.; Baldi, C.; Pagliaro, U.; Nieri, M.; Saletta, D.; Rotundo, R.; Cortellini, P. Coronally Advanced Flap Procedure for Root Coverage. Treatment of Root Surface: Root Planning versus Polishing. J. Periodontol. 1999, 70, 1064–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Naomi, R.; Ardhani, R.; Hafiyyah, O.A.; Fauzi, M.B. Current Insight of Collagen Biomatrix for Gingival Recession: An Evidence-Based Systematic Review. Polymers 2020, 12, 2081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Jati, A.S.; Furquim, L.Z.; Consolaro, A. Gingival Recession: Its Causes and Types, and the Importance of Orthodontic Treatment. Dent. Press J. Orthod. 2016, 21, 18–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Tavelli, L.; Barootchi, S.; Nguyen, T.V.N.; Tattan, M.; Ravidà, A.; Wang, H.-L. Efficacy of Tunnel Technique in the Treatment of Localized and Multiple Gingival Recessions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Periodontol. 2018, 89, 1075–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Kasaj, A. Etiology and Prevalence of Gingival Recession. In Gingival Recession Management; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 19–31. ISBN 978-3-319-70717-4. [Google Scholar]
  6. Kassab, M.M.; Cohen, R.E. The Etiology and Prevalence of Gingival Recession. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2003, 134, 220–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Imber, J.-C.; Kasaj, A. Treatment of Gingival Recession: When and How? Int. Dent. J. 2021, 71, 178–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cortellini, P.; Bissada, N.F. Mucogingival Conditions in the Natural Dentition: Narrative Review, Case Definitions, and Diagnostic Considerations. J. Periodontol. 2018, 89, S204–S213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Chambrone, L.; Chambrone, D.; Pustiglioni, F.E.; Chambrone, L.A.; Lima, L.A. The Influence of Tobacco Smoking on the Outcomes Achieved by Root-Coverage Procedures: A Systematic Review. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2009, 140, 294–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cairo, F.; Pagliaro, U.; Nieri, M. Treatment of Gingival Recession with Coronally Advanced Flap Procedures: A Systematic Review. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2008, 35, 136–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zucchelli, G.; Mounssif, I. Periodontal Plastic Surgery. Periodontology 2000 2015, 68, 333–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Rasperini, G.; Acunzo, R.; Limiroli, E. Decision Making in Gingival Recession Treatment: Scientific Evidence and Clinical Experience. Clin. Adv. Periodontics 2011, 1, 41–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Bernimoulin, J.P.; Lüscher, B.; Mühlemann, H.R. Coronally Repositioned Periodontal Flap. Clinical Evaluation after One Year. J. Clin. Periodontol. 1975, 2, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Allen, E.P.; Miller, P.D. Coronal Positioning of Existing Gingiva: Short Term Results in the Treatment of Shallow Marginal Tissue Recession. J. Periodontol. 1989, 60, 316–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zucchelli, G.; De Sanctis, M. Treatment of Multiple Recession-Type Defects in Patients with Esthetic Demands. J. Periodontol. 2000, 71, 1506–1514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Zucchelli, G.; De Sanctis, M. The Coronally Advanced Flap for the Treatment of Multiple Recession Defects: A Modified Surgical Approach for the Upper Anterior Teeth. J. Int. Acad. Periodontol. 2007, 9, 96–103. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  17. Zuhr, O.; Rebele, S.F.; Vach, K.; Petsos, H.; Hürzeler, M.B. Research Group for Oral Soft Tissue Biology & Wound Healing Tunnel Technique with Connective Tissue Graft versus Coronally Advanced Flap with Enamel Matrix Derivate for Root Coverage: 2-Year Results of an RCT Using 3D Digital Measuring for Volumetric Comparison of Gingival Dimensions. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2020, 47, 1144–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Parween, S.; George, J.P.; Prabhuji, M. Treatment of Multiple Mandibular Gingival Recession Defects Using MCAT Technique and SCTG With and Without RhPDGF-BB: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2020, 40, e43–e51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Vallecillo, C.; Toledano-Osorio, M.; Vallecillo-Rivas, M.; Toledano, M.; Rodriguez-Archilla, A.; Osorio, R. Collagen Matrix vs. Autogenous Connective Tissue Graft for Soft Tissue Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Polymers 2021, 13, 1810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zucchelli, G.; Tavelli, L.; McGuire, M.K.; Rasperini, G.; Feinberg, S.E.; Wang, H.-L.; Giannobile, W.V. Autogenous Soft Tissue Grafting for Periodontal and Peri-Implant Plastic Surgical Reconstruction. J. Periodontol. 2020, 91, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Shaikh, M.S.; Lone, M.A.; Matabdin, H.; Lone, M.A.; Soomro, A.H.; Zafar, M.S. Regenerative Potential of Enamel Matrix Protein Derivative and Acellular Dermal Matrix for Gingival Recession: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Proteomes 2021, 9, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Toledano, M.; Toledano-Osorio, M.; Carrasco-Carmona, Á.; Vallecillo, C.; Toledano, R.; Medina-Castillo, A.L.; Osorio, R. State of the Art on Biomaterials for Soft Tissue Augmentation in the Oral Cavity. Part II: Synthetic Polymers-Based Biomaterials. Polymers 2020, 12, 1845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Dhandayuthapani, B.; Yoshida, Y.; Maekawa, T.; Kumar, D.S. Polymeric Scaffolds in Tissue Engineering Application: A Review. Int. J. Polym. Sci. 2011, 2011, e290602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Tonetti, M.S.; Jepsen, S. Working Group 2 of the European Workshop on Periodontology Clinical Efficacy of Periodontal Plastic Surgery Procedures: Consensus Report of Group 2 of the 10th European Workshop on Periodontology. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2014, 41, S36–S43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Azaripour, A.; Kissinger, M.; Farina, V.S.L.; Van Noorden, C.J.F.; Gerhold-Ay, A.; Willershausen, B.; Cortellini, P. Root Coverage with Connective Tissue Graft Associated with Coronally Advanced Flap or Tunnel Technique: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Mono-Centre Clinical Trial. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2016, 43, 1142–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Bherwani, C.; Kulloli, A.; Kathariya, R.; Shetty, S.; Agrawal, P.; Gujar, D.; Desai, A. Zucchelli’s Technique or Tunnel Technique with Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft for Treatment of Multiple Gingival Recessions. J. Int. Acad. Periodontol. 2014, 16, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  27. Salhi, L.; Lecloux, G.; Seidel, L.; Rompen, E.; Lambert, F. Coronally Advanced Flap versus the Pouch Technique Combined with a Connective Tissue Graft to Treat Miller’s Class I Gingival Recession: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2014, 41, 387–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Moher, D.; Shamseer, L.; Clarke, M.; Ghersi, D.; Liberati, A.; Petticrew, M.; Shekelle, P.; Stewart, L.A. PRISMA-P Group Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 Statement. Syst. Rev. 2015, 4, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Higgins, J.P.T.; Altman, D.G.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Jüni, P.; Moher, D.; Oxman, A.D.; Savovic, J.; Schulz, K.F.; Weeks, L.; Sterne, J.A.C.; et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Randomised Trials. BMJ 2011, 343, d5928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. PRISMA Group Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Sterne, J.A.C.; Savović, J.; Page, M.J.; Elbers, R.G.; Blencowe, N.S.; Boutron, I.; Cates, C.J.; Cheng, H.-Y.; Corbett, M.S.; Eldridge, S.M.; et al. RoB 2: A Revised Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Randomised Trials. BMJ 2019, 366, l4898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Sterne, J.A.; Hernán, M.A.; Reeves, B.C.; Savović, J.; Berkman, N.D.; Viswanathan, M.; Henry, D.; Altman, D.G.; Ansari, M.T.; Boutron, I.; et al. ROBINS-I: A Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions. BMJ 2016, 355, i4919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Galbraith, R.F. Graphical Display of Estimates Having Differing Standard Errors. Technometrics 1988, 30, 271–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Baujat, B.; Mahé, C.; Pignon, J.-P.; Hill, C. A Graphical Method for Exploring Heterogeneity in Meta-Analyses: Application to a Meta-Analysis of 65 Trials. Stat. Med. 2002, 21, 2641–2652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zuhr, O.; Akakpo, D.; Eickholz, P.; Vach, K.; Hürzeler, M.B.; Petsos, H. Research Group for Oral Soft Tissue Biology & Wound Healing Tunnel Technique with Connective Tissue Graft versus Coronally Advanced Flap with Enamel Matrix Derivate for Root Coverage: 5-Year Results of an RCT Using 3D Digital Measurement Technology for Volumetric Comparison of Soft Tissue Changes. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2021, 48, 949–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Bhatavadekar, N.B.; Gharpure, A.S.; Chambrone, L. Long-Term Outcomes of Coronally Advanced Tunnel Flap (CATF) and the Envelope Flap (MCAF) Plus Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft (SCTG) in the Treatment of Multiple Recession-Type Defects: A 6-Year Retrospective Analysis. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2019, 39, 623–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Salem, S.; Salhi, L.; Seidel, L.; Lecloux, G.; Rompen, E.; Lambert, F. Tunnel/Pouch versus Coronally Advanced Flap Combined with a Connective Tissue Graft for the Treatment of Maxillary Gingival Recessions: Four-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, E2641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Neves, F.L.D.S.; Augusto Silveira, C.; Mathias-Santamaria, I.F.; Miguel, M.M.V.; Ferraz, L.F.F.; Casarin, R.C.V.; Sallum, E.A.; Tatakis, D.N.; Santamaria, M.P. Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating Single Maxillary Gingival Recession Treatment with Connective Tissue Graft and Tunnel or Trapezoidal Flap: 2-Year Follow-Up. J. Periodontol. 2019, 91, 1018–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Santamaria, M.P.; Neves, F.L.D.S.; Silveira, C.A.; Mathias, I.F.; Fernandes-Dias, S.B.; Jardini, M.A.N.; Tatakis, D.N. Connective Tissue Graft and Tunnel or Trapezoidal Flap for the Treatment of Single Maxillary Gingival Recessions: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2017, 44, 540–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gobbato, L.; Nart, J.; Bressan, E.; Mazzocco, F.; Paniz, G.; Lops, D. Patient Morbidity and Root Coverage Outcomes after the Application of a Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft in Combination with a Coronally Advanced Flap or via a Tunneling Technique: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. Clin. Oral Investig. 2016, 20, 2191–2202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tözüm, T.F.; Keçeli, H.G.; Güncü, G.N.; Hatipoğlu, H.; Sengün, D. Treatment of Gingival Recession: Comparison of Two Techniques of Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft. J. Periodontol. 2005, 76, 1842–1848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ozenci, I.; Ipci, S.D.; Cakar, G.; Yilmaz, S. Tunnel Technique versus Coronally Advanced Flap with Acellular Dermal Matrix Graft in the Treatment of Multiple Gingival Recessions. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2015, 42, 1135–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Tavelli, L.; Barootchi, S.; Di Gianfilippo, R.; Modarressi, M.; Cairo, F.; Rasperini, G.; Wang, H.-L. Acellular Dermal Matrix and Coronally Advanced Flap or Tunnel Technique in the Treatment of Multiple Adjacent Gingival Recessions. A 12-Year Follow-up from a Randomized Clinical Trial. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2019, 46, 937–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Papageorgakopoulos, G.; Greenwell, H.; Hill, M.; Vidal, R.; Scheetz, J.P. Root Coverage Using Acellular Dermal Matrix and Comparing a Coronally Positioned Tunnel to a Coronally Positioned Flap Approach. J. Periodontol. 2008, 79, 1022–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Ramos, U.D.; Bastos, G.F.; Costa, C.A.; de Souza, S.L.S.; Taba, M.; Novaes, A.B. Root Coverage with Tunneling Technique or Modified Advanced Flap Associated with Acellular Dermal Matrix: Results from 6 Months Randomized Clinical Trial. Clin. Oral Investig. 2021, 26, 773–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Akcan, S.K.; Ünsal, B. Gingival Recession Treatment with Concentrated Growth Factor Membrane: A Comparative Clinical Trial. J. Appl. Oral Sci. 2020, 28, e20190236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Cairo, F.; Nieri, M.; Pagliaro, U. Efficacy of Periodontal Plastic Surgery Procedures in the Treatment of Localized Facial Gingival Recessions. A Systematic Review. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2014, 41, S44–S62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Chambrone, L.; Salinas Ortega, M.A.; Sukekava, F.; Rotundo, R.; Kalemaj, Z.; Buti, J.; Pini Prato, G.P. Root Coverage Procedures for Treating Localised and Multiple Recession-Type Defects. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2018, 10, CD007161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ahmedbeyli, C.; Dirikan Ipçi, S.; Cakar, G.; Yılmaz, S.; Chambrone, L. Coronally Advanced Flap and Envelope Type of Flap plus Acellular Dermal Matrix Graft for the Treatment of Thin Phenotype Multiple Recession Defects. A Randomized Clinical Trial. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2019, 46, 1024–1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Stefanini, M.; Marzadori, M.; Aroca, S.; Felice, P.; Sangiorgi, M.; Zucchelli, G. Decision Making in Root-Coverage Procedures for the Esthetic Outcome. Periodontology 2000 2018, 77, 54–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Raetzke, P.B. Covering Localized Areas of Root Exposure Employing the “Envelope” Technique. J. Periodontol. 1985, 56, 397–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Zuhr, O.; Rebele, S.F.; Cheung, S.L.; Hürzeler, M.B. Research Group on Oral Soft Tissue Biology and Wound Healing Surgery without Papilla Incision: Tunneling Flap Procedures in Plastic Periodontal and Implant Surgery. Periodontology 2000 2018, 77, 123–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Graziani, F.; Gennai, S.; Roldán, S.; Discepoli, N.; Buti, J.; Madianos, P.; Herrera, D. Efficacy of Periodontal Plastic Procedures in the Treatment of Multiple Gingival Recessions. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2014, 41, S63–S76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Cortellini, P.; Pini Prato, G. Coronally Advanced Flap and Combination Therapy for Root Coverage. Clinical Strategies Based on Scientific Evidence and Clinical Experience. Periodontology 2000 2012, 59, 158–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Zuhr, O.; Rebele, S.F.; Schneider, D.; Jung, R.E.; Hürzeler, M.B. Tunnel Technique with Connective Tissue Graft versus Coronally Advanced Flap with Enamel Matrix Derivative for Root Coverage: A RCT Using 3D Digital Measuring Methods. Part I. Clinical and Patient-Centred Outcomes. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2014, 41, 582–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Bhatia, A.; Yadav, V.S.; Tewari, N.; Kumar, A.; Sharma, R.K. Efficacy of Modified Coronally Advanced Flap in the Treatment of Multiple Adjacent Gingival Recessions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Acta Odontol. Scand. 2021, 79, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Chambrone, L.; Tatakis, D.N. Periodontal Soft Tissue Root Coverage Procedures: A Systematic Review from the AAP Regeneration Workshop. J. Periodontol. 2015, 86, S8–S51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Thoma, D.S.; Zeltner, M.; Hilbe, M.; Hämmerle, C.H.F.; Hüsler, J.; Jung, R.E. Randomized Controlled Clinical Study Evaluating Effectiveness and Safety of a Volume-Stable Collagen Matrix Compared to Autogenous Connective Tissue Grafts for Soft Tissue Augmentation at Implant Sites. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2016, 43, 874–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Rothamel, D.; Benner, M.; Fienitz, T.; Happe, A.; Kreppel, M.; Nickenig, H.-J.; Zöller, J.E. Biodegradation Pattern and Tissue Integration of Native and Cross-Linked Porcine Collagen Soft Tissue Augmentation Matrices—An Experimental Study in the Rat. Head Face Med. 2014, 10, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Cairo, F.; Barootchi, S.; Tavelli, L.; Barbato, L.; Wang, H.-L.; Rasperini, G.; Graziani, F.; Tonetti, M. Aesthetic-And Patient-Related Outcomes Following Root Coverage Procedures: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2020, 47, 1403–1415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Tavelli, L.; Ravidà, A.; Lin, G.-H.; Del Amo, F.S.-L.; Tattan, M.; Wang, H.-L. Comparison between Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft and De-Epithelialized Gingival Graft: A Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis. J. Int. Acad. Periodontol. 2019, 21, 82–96. [Google Scholar]
  62. Di Gianfilippo, R.; Wang, I.-C.; Steigmann, L.; Velasquez, D.; Wang, H.-L.; Chan, H.-L. Efficacy of Microsurgery and Comparison to Macrosurgery for Gingival Recession Treatment: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. Clin. Oral Investig. 2021, 25, 4269–4280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Egger, M.; Davey Smith, G.; Schneider, M.; Minder, C. Bias in Meta-Analysis Detected by a Simple, Graphical Test. BMJ 1997, 315, 629–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Toledano-Osorio, M.; Toledano, M.; Manzano-Moreno, F.J.; Vallecillo, C.; Vallecillo-Rivas, M.; Rodriguez-Archilla, A.; Osorio, R. Alveolar Bone Ridge Augmentation Using Polymeric Membranes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Polymers 2021, 13, 1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Polymers 14 01453 g001 550
Figure 1. Illustration of the coronally advanced flap (CAF) and tunnel (TUN) surgical techniques for the treatment of gingival recessions. (a) CAF involves a flap elevation combining full and split thicknesses followed by the application of a connective tissue graft (CTG) or a polymeric substitute (PolS), which are then sutured over the root surfaces. (b) TUN consists of creating a supraperiosteal “envelope” or “pouch” at the gingival margins, allowing flap elevation and insertion of a connective tissue graft CTG or a PolS.
Figure 1. Illustration of the coronally advanced flap (CAF) and tunnel (TUN) surgical techniques for the treatment of gingival recessions. (a) CAF involves a flap elevation combining full and split thicknesses followed by the application of a connective tissue graft (CTG) or a polymeric substitute (PolS), which are then sutured over the root surfaces. (b) TUN consists of creating a supraperiosteal “envelope” or “pouch” at the gingival margins, allowing flap elevation and insertion of a connective tissue graft CTG or a PolS.
Polymers 14 01453 g001
Polymers 14 01453 g002 550
Figure 2. Flow diagram of the present systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines.
Figure 2. Flow diagram of the present systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines.
Polymers 14 01453 g002
Polymers 14 01453 g003 550
Figure 3. Quality evaluation of the RCTs using the RoB 2 tool (Cochrane Collaboration). The risk of bias in the included studies was classified as either low (green), some concerns (yellow) or high (red).
Figure 3. Quality evaluation of the RCTs using the RoB 2 tool (Cochrane Collaboration). The risk of bias in the included studies was classified as either low (green), some concerns (yellow) or high (red).
Polymers 14 01453 g003
Polymers 14 01453 g004 550
Figure 4. Quality evaluation of the CCT using the ROBINS-I tool. The risk of bias in the included study was classified as low (green), moderate (yellow) or serious (red).
Figure 4. Quality evaluation of the CCT using the ROBINS-I tool. The risk of bias in the included study was classified as low (green), moderate (yellow) or serious (red).
Polymers 14 01453 g004
Polymers 14 01453 g005 550
Figure 5. Forest plot for TUN (control group) versus CAF (test group) when comparing the percentage of root coverage after surgical treatment for: (a) single or multiple GRs and the use of a connective tissue graft or a polymeric substitute; (b) single GRs and the use of a connective tissue graft or a substitute; (c) multiple GRs and the use of a connective tissue graft or a polymeric substitute; (d) single or multiple GRs and the use of a connective tissue graft; (e) single or multiple GRs and the use of a polymeric substitute; (f) single or multiple GRs and a 6 month follow-up; (g) single or multiple GRs and a 12 month follow-up. The weighted means are presented with a CI of 95%. Heterogeneity was determined using Higgins (I2). A random-effects model was applied to all analyses. Statistical significance was set at 0.05.
Figure 5. Forest plot for TUN (control group) versus CAF (test group) when comparing the percentage of root coverage after surgical treatment for: (a) single or multiple GRs and the use of a connective tissue graft or a polymeric substitute; (b) single GRs and the use of a connective tissue graft or a substitute; (c) multiple GRs and the use of a connective tissue graft or a polymeric substitute; (d) single or multiple GRs and the use of a connective tissue graft; (e) single or multiple GRs and the use of a polymeric substitute; (f) single or multiple GRs and a 6 month follow-up; (g) single or multiple GRs and a 12 month follow-up. The weighted means are presented with a CI of 95%. Heterogeneity was determined using Higgins (I2). A random-effects model was applied to all analyses. Statistical significance was set at 0.05.
Polymers 14 01453 g005
Polymers 14 01453 g006 550
Figure 6. Funnel plot graph illustrating the publication bias and the systematic heterogeneity of the included studies. The standard error (SE) is represented on the vertical axis and the percentage of root coverage (MD) on the horizontal axis.
Figure 6. Funnel plot graph illustrating the publication bias and the systematic heterogeneity of the included studies. The standard error (SE) is represented on the vertical axis and the percentage of root coverage (MD) on the horizontal axis.
Polymers 14 01453 g006
Polymers 14 01453 g007 550
Figure 7. Galbraith plot for TUN (control group) versus CAF (test group) when comparing the percentage of root coverage after surgical treatment, constructed to examine the contribution of individual studies to the heterogeneity metrics and identify outliers. The vertical axis represents the observed effect sizes standardized according to their corresponding standard errors (y = MD/SE[MD]) against precision on the horizontal axis (x = 1/SE[MD]). The regression diagonal line is projected from the origin (0, 0), and the approximate 95% confidence intervals run between the two intermittent parallel lines at ±2 units above and below the regression line. The ID labels were also included, allowing an easier identification of the studies. The study below the confidence limit was identified as an important outlier (Tozüm et al. [41], depicted as a red circle) that contributed disproportionately to the observed heterogeneity. Abbreviations: CAF, coronally advanced flap; MD, mean difference; SE, standard error; TUN, tunnel.
Figure 7. Galbraith plot for TUN (control group) versus CAF (test group) when comparing the percentage of root coverage after surgical treatment, constructed to examine the contribution of individual studies to the heterogeneity metrics and identify outliers. The vertical axis represents the observed effect sizes standardized according to their corresponding standard errors (y = MD/SE[MD]) against precision on the horizontal axis (x = 1/SE[MD]). The regression diagonal line is projected from the origin (0, 0), and the approximate 95% confidence intervals run between the two intermittent parallel lines at ±2 units above and below the regression line. The ID labels were also included, allowing an easier identification of the studies. The study below the confidence limit was identified as an important outlier (Tozüm et al. [41], depicted as a red circle) that contributed disproportionately to the observed heterogeneity. Abbreviations: CAF, coronally advanced flap; MD, mean difference; SE, standard error; TUN, tunnel.
Polymers 14 01453 g007
Polymers 14 01453 g008 550
Figure 8. Baujat plot depicting the contribution of individual studies to overall heterogeneity on the x-axis (i.e., relative contribution to the Q-statistic) plotted against influence on the overall result on the y-axis (leave-one-out method). A Baujat plot was applied to identify the specific subsamples sharing potential sources of heterogeneity. The most heterogeneous and influential primary-level studies should appear in the upper right area of the graph. ID labels were included to allow easier identification of the studies. This graphical method allowed us to identify that Tozüm et al. [41] (depicted as a red circle) provided the greatest contribution to heterogeneity, and could potentially harbor differential clinical, methodological or statistical characteristics as the main source of heterogeneity.
Figure 8. Baujat plot depicting the contribution of individual studies to overall heterogeneity on the x-axis (i.e., relative contribution to the Q-statistic) plotted against influence on the overall result on the y-axis (leave-one-out method). A Baujat plot was applied to identify the specific subsamples sharing potential sources of heterogeneity. The most heterogeneous and influential primary-level studies should appear in the upper right area of the graph. ID labels were included to allow easier identification of the studies. This graphical method allowed us to identify that Tozüm et al. [41] (depicted as a red circle) provided the greatest contribution to heterogeneity, and could potentially harbor differential clinical, methodological or statistical characteristics as the main source of heterogeneity.
Polymers 14 01453 g008
Polymers 14 01453 g009 550
Figure 9. Forest plot for TUN (control group) versus CAF (test group) when comparing the percentage of root coverage after surgical treatment after excluding Tozüm et al. [41] from the analysis. The weighted means are presented with a CI of 95%. Heterogeneity was determined using Higgins (I2). A random-effects model was applied to all analyses. Statistical significance was set at 0.05.
Figure 9. Forest plot for TUN (control group) versus CAF (test group) when comparing the percentage of root coverage after surgical treatment after excluding Tozüm et al. [41] from the analysis. The weighted means are presented with a CI of 95%. Heterogeneity was determined using Higgins (I2). A random-effects model was applied to all analyses. Statistical significance was set at 0.05.
Polymers 14 01453 g009
Polymers 14 01453 g010 550
Figure 10. Forest plot for TUN (control group) versus CAF (test group) when comparing the percentage of root coverage after surgical treatment after excluding Tozüm et al. [41] from the analysis. Single and multiple GRs were considered together when using a connective tissue graft or a polymeric substitute. The weighted means are presented with a CI of 95%. Heterogeneity was determined using Higgins (I2). A random-effects model was applied to all analyses. Statistical significance was set at 0.05.
Figure 10. Forest plot for TUN (control group) versus CAF (test group) when comparing the percentage of root coverage after surgical treatment after excluding Tozüm et al. [41] from the analysis. Single and multiple GRs were considered together when using a connective tissue graft or a polymeric substitute. The weighted means are presented with a CI of 95%. Heterogeneity was determined using Higgins (I2). A random-effects model was applied to all analyses. Statistical significance was set at 0.05.
Polymers 14 01453 g010
Table
Table 1. Electronic databases and search strategies.
Table 1. Electronic databases and search strategies.
KeywordsDatabases
#1 tunnel technique OR TUN OR pouch OR coronally advanced flap modification tunnel technique OR coronally advanced tunnel technique OR coronally advanced tunnel flap OR tunneling technique OR tunneling flap OR coronally positioned tunnel OR MCATPUBMED
#2 gingival recession * OR recession *Cochrane Library
#3 collagen matrix OR xenogenic collagen matrix OR acellular dermal matrix OR porcine collagen matrix OR porcine derived acellular dermal matrix OR dermal substitute OR polymeric membranes OR polymeric membrane OR connective tissue graft(CENTRAL)
EMBASE
#1 AND #2 AND #3WOS
Table
Table 2. Main characteristics of the included studies investigating the surgical technique used for gingival recession treatment with the primary outcome.
Table 2. Main characteristics of the included studies investigating the surgical technique used for gingival recession treatment with the primary outcome.
AuthorStudy DesignFollow-UpType of GRSurgical Technique (Patients)% Root Coverage
Mean (SD)
Ramos et al., 2021
[45]		RCT6 monthsSingle and multipleCAF + PolS (20)
TUN + PolS (20)		61.24 (23.42)
56.07 (22.02)
Zuhr et al., 2021
[35]		RCT12 monthsSingle and multipleCAF + EMD (13)
TUN + CTG (15)		71.8 (20.3)
98.4 (3.6)
Salem et al., 2020
[37]		RCT6 monthsSingleCAF + CTG (20)
TUN + CTG (20)		96.3 (12.1)
91.3 (17.6)
Tavelli et al., 2019
[43]		RCT6 monthsMultipleCAF + PolS (24)
TUN + PolS (24)		88.14 (16.91)
89.13 (15.19)
Bhatavadekar et al., 2019 [36]CCT12 monthsMultipleCAF + CTG (21)
TUN + CTG (15)		96.90 (NR)
89.56 (NR)
Neves et al., 2019
[38]		RCT12 monthsSingleCAF + CTG (19)
TUN + CTG (20)		89.9 (16.1)
81.7 (16.9)
Santamaría et al., 2017 [39]RCT6 monthsSingleCAF + CTG (21)
TUN + CTG (21)		87.2 (27.1)
77.4 (20.4)
Azaripour et al., 2016
[25]		RCT12 monthsSingle and multipleCAF + CTG (20)
TUN + CTG (20)		98.3 (9.2)
97.3 (7.6)
Gobbato et al., 2016
[40]		RCT12 monthsSingle and multipleCAF + CTG (25)
TUN + CTG (25)		85 (17)
87 (17.5)
Ozenci et al., 2015
[42]		RCT12 monthsMultipleCAF + PolS (10)
TUN + PolS (10)		93.81 (13.10)
75.72 (6.54)
Bherwani et al., 2014
[26]		RCT6 monthsMultipleCAF + CTG (10)
TUN + CTG (10)		89.33 (14.47)
80.00 (15.39)
Papageorgakopoulos et al., 2008 [44]RCT4 monthsSingleCAF + PolS (12)
TUN + PolS (12)		99 (3)
95 (7)
Tözüm et al., 2005
[41]		RCT6 monthsMultipleCAF + CTG (17)
TUN + CTG (14)		75.53 (6.57)
96.43 (3.57)
PolS, polymeric substitute; CAF, coronally advanced flap; CCT, controlled clinical trial; CTG, connective tissue graft; EMD, enamel matrix derivative; GR, gingival recession; NR, not reported; RCT, randomized clinical trial; SD, standard deviation; TUN, tunnel.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Toledano-Osorio, M.; Muñoz-Soto, E.; Toledano, M.; Vallecillo-Rivas, M.; Vallecillo, C.; Ramos-García, P.; Osorio, R. Treating Gingival Recessions Using Coronally Advanced Flap or Tunnel Techniques with Autografts or Polymeric Substitutes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Polymers 2022, 14, 1453. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14071453

AMA Style

Toledano-Osorio M, Muñoz-Soto E, Toledano M, Vallecillo-Rivas M, Vallecillo C, Ramos-García P, Osorio R. Treating Gingival Recessions Using Coronally Advanced Flap or Tunnel Techniques with Autografts or Polymeric Substitutes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Polymers. 2022; 14(7):1453. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14071453

Chicago/Turabian Style

Toledano-Osorio, Manuel, Esther Muñoz-Soto, Manuel Toledano, Marta Vallecillo-Rivas, Cristina Vallecillo, Pablo Ramos-García, and Raquel Osorio. 2022. "Treating Gingival Recessions Using Coronally Advanced Flap or Tunnel Techniques with Autografts or Polymeric Substitutes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Polymers 14, no. 7: 1453. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14071453

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop