ArticleWorld journal of clinical cases2015
Gingival unit transfer using in the Miller III recession defect treatment.
Article in World journal of clinical cases, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04637451 (The Comparison of the Efficacy of Gingival Unit Graft With Connective Tissue Graft in Root Coverage), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
The Comparison of the Efficacy of Gingival Unit Graft With Connective Tissue Graft in Root Coverage: A Randomized Split-Mouth Clinical Trial
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The comparison of the efficacy of gingival unit graft with connective tissue graft in recession defect coverage: a randomized split-mouth clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2022Trial
- Review
- Gingival Unit Graft Versus Free Gingival Graft for Treatment of Gingival Recession: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.Journal of dentistry (Tehran, Iran) · 2016Article
- Lateral osteoperiosteal flap versus lateral pedicle flap in the treatment of class III gingival recession: A single-center, open-label trial.Journal of Indian Society of PeriodontologyArticle
- Successful management of gingival recession with interdental attachment loss using gingival unit grafts.Journal of Indian Society of PeriodontologyArticle
- Comparison of the effectiveness of Gingival unit transfer and free Gingival graft in the management of localized Gingival recession - A systematic review.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The most significant factor for the success in soft tissue grafts is the synergistic relation between vascular configuration and involved tissues. In the soft tissue graft procedures, site specific donor tissue is assumed to have improved potential for function and aesthetic survive at recipient sites. On a clinical level, using site specific gingival unit graft that placed on traditionally prepared recipient site, results in predictable root coverage. In this case report the clinical effectiveness of gingival unit transfer (GUT) technique performed on Miller III recession was presented and a similar recession case treated with free gingival graft (FGG) technique for comparison. Probing depth, recession depth, keratinized tissue width and clinical attachment level clinical parameters were measured at baseline and postoperative 8 mo. Percentage of defect coverage was evaluated at postoperative 8 mo. Creeping attachment was assessed at postoperative 1, 3, 6 and 8 mo. The GUT revealed better defect coverage and creeping attachment results than the FGG in the treatment of Miller III defects.
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.