SynthesisBMC oral health2026
Efficacy of combined periodontal-restorative treatment versus periodontal treatment alone for gingival recession associated with non-carious cervical lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveGingival recession (GR) is frequently associated with non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs), necessitating a combined periodontal and restorative approach for optimal clinical management. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared integrated periodontal-restorative interventions with isolated periodontal treatment for managing GRs linked to NCCLs.
methodsA comprehensive search of electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, SciELO, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, OpenAIRE, ProQuest, and Google Scholar, was performed up to December 2025 to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with ≥ 1-year follow-up. We analyzed studies comparing integrated periodontal-restorative interventions against isolated periodontal therapy for NCCL-associated GRs. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2.0, while evidence certainty was graded using the GRADE framework.
resultsOut of 199 screened records, four RCTs were included. Pooled data showed no significant differences between the treatment groups regarding nine periodontal parameters, with the exception of a slight increase in probing depth in the combined therapy groups.
conclusionNo statistically significant differences were observed between combined periodontal-restorative treatment and periodontal treatment alone for most clinical, esthetic, and root coverage outcomes in the management of gingival recessions associated with non-carious cervical lesions. The combined approach was associated with a significant reduction in dentin sensitivity and a statistically significant increase in probing depth, although the clinical relevance of the latter finding appears limited because it remained values within healthy periodontal ranges. These findings should be interpreted cautiously due to the low to very low certainty of evidence and the limited number of available randomized clinical trials. Further well-designed multicenter studies are needed to confirm the long-term effects of these interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.