Objectives The aim of this review is to address the potential applications of allogenous dermal matrix (ADM), as an alternative to subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG), in promoting periodontal phenotype modification (PPM) of challenging periodontal‐orthodontic clinical scenarios. Overview The rationale behind the need of changing thin to thick gingival tissues is associated to the superior and more stable treatment outcomes promoted by PPM therapy. PPM, via soft tissue grafting, leads to clinical and histological changes of the pre‐established original genetic conditions of the gingiva. Although SCTG‐based procedures are recognized as the “gold standard” for the treatment of sites requiring root coverage and gingival augmentation, ADM has been recognized as the most suitable alternative to SCTG, particularly in clinical scenarios where the use of autogenous grafts is not possible. Thus, ADM is considered an optimal option for the treatment of patients with a history (or in need) of orthodontic tooth movement, due its two‐fold potential indication: (1) the promotion of periodontal soft tissue phenotype modification; and (2) its use, as a barrier membrane, in hard tissues augmentation procedures. Conclusions ADM is a viable option for soft tissue augmentation, as well as for treatment approaches involving buccal bone gain. Clinical Significance Periodontal phenotype modification therapy, when applied in challenging periodontal‐orthodontic clinical scenarios, promotes root coverage and prevents the onset and development clinical attachment loss.

Different types of errors and complications may arise during and after the execution of periodontal or implant‐related procedures. Some of the most relevant, although also controversial, and less commented, causative agents of errors and complications are methodological biases and bad interpretation of the evidence. Proper assessment of the literature requires of solid clinical knowledge combined with a systematic approach built on the recognition of common methodological biases and the avoidance of interpretive errors to critically retrieve, dissect, and judiciously apply available information for the promotion of periodontal and peri‐implant health. This review addresses common types of methodological bias and interpretive errors that can alter the reader's perceptions on the real effect and potential ramifications of the reported outcomes of a given therapeutic approach due to bad interpretation of the available evidence: (1) types of methodological biases; (2) spin and interpretive bias; (3) interpretation pitfalls when assessing the evidence (4) choice of relevant endpoints to answer the question(s) of interest; and (5) balance between statistical significance and clinical relevance.