Clinical efficacy of xenogeneic and allogeneic 3D matrix in the management of gingival recession: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE A systematic review and meta-analysis was thus conducted to answer the following focused question based on PICO strategy: Is there any 3D matrix biomaterial used for root coverage of human Miller class I and II defects equivalent with the connective tissue graft in localized defects of at least 2 mm and 3 mm? MATERIAL AND METHODS The search on electronic database included MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Clinical Trials.gov, Web of Science, and New Zealand/Australian Clinical Trials. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared connective tissue graft (CTG) with at least one 3D matrix alone for root coverage in Class I and II Miller localized defects of at least 2 mm, with at least 6 months follow-up, were included in this systematic review. RESULTS A total of 14 studies were included for meta-analysis (12 compared CTG with acellular dermal matrix allograft and 2 compared CTG with Xenogenic Collagen Matrix). Relative root coverage showed no significant difference among the materials, for either 2 or 3 mm minimal recessions. For keratinized tissue width, on 2 mm recessions, CTG showed superiority above other biomaterials, but on 3 mm recessions, it seemed to have the same results. The percentage of recessions with complete root coverage for both 2 and 3 mm recessions showed similar results for all biomaterials. CONCLUSIONS With their limits, the present data concluded that CTG, acellular dermal matrix allograft, and xenogenic collagen matrix provided similar results for root coverage. CLINICAL RELEVANCE To know if there is a 3D matrix with equivalent predictable results for root coverage, that we could avoid the morbidity of the connective tissue graft for these cases