Abstract：
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.
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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
摘要：
目的：本研究旨在比较无细胞异种真皮基质移植物（AXDM）与结缔组织移植物（CTG）治疗多发性牙龈凹陷的疗效。
方法：对电子数据库进行系统检索，以确定比较AXDM和CTG的随机临床试验（RCT）。选定的研究进行了偏倚风险评估，数据提取,和荟萃分析。参数，如牙龈后退高度，宽度,根覆盖率的平均百分比，并分析了完全的根系覆盖率。
结果：共纳入了146例患者的7个随机对照试验。荟萃分析表明，在最终随访时，CTG在降低牙龈后退高度方面在统计学上优于AXDM（平均差异：-0.104mm，95％置信区间[CI]：-0.180-0.028，p=0.008）和最终随访时的宽度（平均差：-0.285mm，95%CI：-0.541-0.030，p=0.029）。在6个月的随访中，CTG还显示出明显更高的平均根覆盖率（平均值差异：-2.761mm，与AXDM相比，95％CI：-4.932-0.590，p=0.013）和6个月随访时完全根覆盖率更高（比值比[OR]：0.598，95％CI：0.4-0.892，p=0.012）。然而,CTG和AXDM之间完全牙根覆盖的牙齿数量（OR：1.610，95％CI：0.983-2.636，p=0.058）和美学结果（平均差：0.148，95％CI：-0.277-0.573，p=0.494）没有显着差异。
结论：CTG比AXDM更有效地治疗多发性牙龈凹陷。牙龈凹陷高度和宽度的显著减少证明了这一点，根覆盖率的平均百分比更高，在6个月的随访中，完全根目录覆盖率更高。
结论：在某些临床情况下，需要CTG的替代方法来治疗多发性牙龈凹陷。AXDM,尽管临床结果不如CTG令人满意，可以用于此目的。
方法：对电子数据库进行系统检索，以确定比较AXDM和CTG的随机临床试验（RCT）。选定的研究进行了偏倚风险评估，数据提取,和荟萃分析。参数，如牙龈后退高度，宽度,根覆盖率的平均百分比，并分析了完全的根系覆盖率。
结果：共纳入了146例患者的7个随机对照试验。荟萃分析表明，在最终随访时，CTG在降低牙龈后退高度方面在统计学上优于AXDM（平均差异：-0.104mm，95％置信区间[CI]：-0.180-0.028，p=0.008）和最终随访时的宽度（平均差：-0.285mm，95%CI：-0.541-0.030，p=0.029）。在6个月的随访中，CTG还显示出明显更高的平均根覆盖率（平均值差异：-2.761mm，与AXDM相比，95％CI：-4.932-0.590，p=0.013）和6个月随访时完全根覆盖率更高（比值比[OR]：0.598，95％CI：0.4-0.892，p=0.012）。然而,CTG和AXDM之间完全牙根覆盖的牙齿数量（OR：1.610，95％CI：0.983-2.636，p=0.058）和美学结果（平均差：0.148，95％CI：-0.277-0.573，p=0.494）没有显着差异。
结论：CTG比AXDM更有效地治疗多发性牙龈凹陷。牙龈凹陷高度和宽度的显著减少证明了这一点，根覆盖率的平均百分比更高，在6个月的随访中，完全根目录覆盖率更高。
结论：在某些临床情况下，需要CTG的替代方法来治疗多发性牙龈凹陷。AXDM,尽管临床结果不如CTG令人满意，可以用于此目的。
