Table 4.
Primary outcome – Pocket Probing Depth
| Comparison | Number of sites (primary studies) | Measure of effect | Effect Model | Direction of effect | Follow up | Heterogeneity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other flap* vs Triangular flap | 164 vs 149 (8) | WDPDR= –0.14; 95% CI (–0.44, 0.17) | Random | No difference | At least 3 months | I2 = 83.4% |
| Triangular vs Envelope flap | 49 vs 49 (3) | SMD= –1.36; 95% CI (–2.68, –0.03) | Random |
Favors triangular flap (lower PPD) |
7 days | I2 = 88% |
| Triangular vs Envelope flap | 37 vs 37 (2) | SMD= –1.43; 95% CI (–3.54, 0.69) | Random | No difference | 14 days | I2 = 93% |
| Ridge preservation** vs Control | 173 vs 173 (11) | MD= –1.42; 95% CI (–2.01, –0.83) | Random | Favors ridge preservation | 6–72 months | I2 = 97% |
| APC vs Control | 48 vs 49 (2) | MD= 1.72; 95% CI (–0.16, 3.60) | Random | No difference | 3–6 months | I2 = 95% |
APC autologous platelet concentrate, WDPDR weighted mean difference of the probing depth reduction, SMD standardized mean difference MD mean difference, PPD pocket probing depth, CI confidence interval
*Szmyd flap, modified Szmyd flap, envelope flap, modified envelope flap, modified triangular flap
**Different techniques and biomaterials were used