GTR may have no added value over connective tissue grafts for gingival recession defects

Abstract

Question: What is the efficacy of guided tissue regeneration (GTR) for recession defects and how does it compare to connective tissue grafts (CTG)? Objective To summarise the efficacy of GTR for recession defects and compare this with connective tissue grafts (CTG). Data sources Medline 1985–2000 (search terms not given). Study selection English-language papers evaluating gingival recession in humans were included. Other criteria were not described and no details of independent evaluation decisions on study eligibility. Data extraction Tables were constructed separately for GTR resorbable and nonresorbable barriers and for studies comparing GTR with CTG. Although no true meta-analyses were attempted, arithmetic means of outcomes were calculated pooling different study designs together. Results Thirty studies were identified. From a mainly qualitative assessment, GTR appeared to offer no advantage over CTG with respect to clinical outcomes of root coverage. Technical difficulties of GTR were also highlighted including achieving primary flap closure and membrane exposure. Differences in study design and reporting hampered efforts to formally pool the data. Conclusion The authors conclude that the use of GTR does not result in greater benefits than CTG alone. Danesh-Meyer MJ, Wikesjo UME. Gingival recession defects and guided tissue regeneration: a review. J Periodont Res 2001; 36:341–354