Histological Outcomes of Root Coverage Procedures: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis
- PMID: 41017258
- DOI: 10.1111/jre.70043
Histological Outcomes of Root Coverage Procedures: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis
Abstract
Objective: To answer the focused PEOS question: In animals or humans with gingival recession defects (P) what are the histological outcomes (O) of different root coverage procedures (RCPs) (E) in preclinical or clinical studies (S)?
Methods: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) were searched for eligible studies reporting histological outcomes of RCPs in large-animal models or humans. Histomorphometric data from animal studies were summarized as pooled means (PM) for each RCP and compared between different RCPs using effect sizes (ES) based on random-effects meta-analyses.
Results: Overall, 41 preclinical (32 canine-, 5 porcine-, 4 primate-models) and 43 clinical studies, mostly case reports/series, were included. The most frequently reported RCPs were coronally advanced flaps with or without connective tissue grafts or soft-tissue substitutes. Biologicals, such as enamel matrix derivatives (EMD) or membranes, were sometimes used as adjuncts in RCPs. In human biopsies, healing following RCPs mostly occurred via the formation of long junctional epithelium (JE) and connective tissue (CT) adhesion. Some degree of periodontal regeneration was reported in half of the studies. In canine studies with experimentally created defects and limited observation times, PM of new bone, cementum, and CT attachment ranged from 0.17 to 0.50, 0.97 to 2.39, and 1.31 to 2.47, respectively. Meta-analyses revealed significantly greater new cementum with inserting fibers when using biologicals, particularly EMD (ES 0.86-0.92), or membranes (ES 0.87) as adjuncts in RCPs.
Conclusion: Healing following RCPs is generally characterized by "repair" (long JE and CT adhesion). Based on animal studies, the adjunctive use of biologicals or membranes in RCPs may enhance periodontal regeneration at least in the short term.
Trial registration: PROSPERO: CRD42024628844.
Keywords: mucogingival surgery; periodontal plastic surgery; periodontal regeneration.
© 2025 The Author(s). Journal of Periodontal Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
References
-
- J. L. Wennstrom and G. Zucchelli, “Increased Gingival Dimensions. A Significant Factor for Successful Outcome of Root Coverage Procedures? A 2‐Year Prospective Clinical Study,” Journal of Clinical Periodontology 23, no. 8 (1996): 770–777.
-
- P. M. Camargo, P. R. Melnick, and E. B. Kenney, “The Use of Free Gingival Grafts for Aesthetic Purposes,” Periodontology 2000 2001, no. 27 (2000): 72–96.
-
- F. Cairo, M. Nieri, S. Cincinelli, J. Mervelt, and U. Pagliaro, “The Interproximal Clinical Attachment Level to Classify Gingival Recessions and Predict Root Coverage Outcomes: An Explorative and Reliability Study,” Journal of Clinical Periodontology 38, no. 7 (2011): 661–666.
-
- M. Romandini, M. C. Soldini, E. Montero, and M. Sanz, “Epidemiology of Mid‐Buccal Gingival Recessions in NHANES According to the 2018 World Workshop Classification System,” Journal of Clinical Periodontology 47, no. 10 (2020): 1180–1190.
-
- P. Cortellini and N. F. Bissada, “Mucogingival Conditions in the Natural Dentition: Narrative Review, Case Definitions, and Diagnostic Considerations,” Journal of Periodontology 89, no. Suppl 1 (2018): S204–S213.
Publication types
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
