Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28108833›Full record

SynthesisClinical oral investigations2017

Soft tissue substitutes in non-root coverage procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Kristina Bertl, Maximilian Melchard, Nikolaos Pandis, Michael Müller-Kern, Andreas Stavropoulos

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. In vitro biocompatibility of biohybrid polymers membrane evaluated in human gingival fibroblasts.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Kristina BertlDepartment of Periodontology, Faculty of Odontology, University of Malmö, Carl Gustafs väg 34, 20506, Malmö, Sweden.
Maximilian MelchardDivision of Oral Surgery, School of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Nikolaos PandisDepartment of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Dental School/Medical Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Michael Müller-KernDivision of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Andreas StavropoulosDepartment of Periodontology, Faculty of Odontology, University of Malmö, Carl Gustafs väg 34, 20506, Malmö, Sweden. andreas.stavropoulos@mah.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8161-3754

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe present systematic review compared the effectiveness of soft tissue substitutes (STSs) and autogenous free gingival grafts (FGGs) in non-root-coverage procedures to increase keratinized tissue (KT) width around teeth. MATERIALS AND

methodsIncluded studies fulfilled the following main eligibility criteria: (a) preclinical in vivo or human controlled trials using FGG as control, (b) non-root-coverage procedures, and (c) assessment of KT width. Meta-analysis was performed on the gain in KT width (primary outcome variable) and several secondary variables.

resultsEight human trials with short observation time evaluating five different STSs were identified. FGG yielded consistently significantly (p < 0.001) larger increase in KT width irrespective whether the comparison regarded an acellular matrix or a tissue-engineered STS. Further, FGG yielded consistently ≥2 mm KT width postoperatively, while use of STS did not, in the few studies reporting on this outcome. On the other hand, STSs resulted in significantly better aesthetic outcomes and received greater patient preference (p < 0.001).

conclusionsBased on relatively limited evidence, in non-root-coverage procedures, FGG (1) resulted consistently in significantly larger increase in KT width compared to STS and (2) yielded consistently ≥2 mm KT width postoperatively, while STSs did not. STSs yielded significantly better aesthetic outcomes, received greater patient preference, and appeared safe. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Larger and more predictable increase in KT width is achieved with FGG, but STSs may be considered when aesthetics is important. Clinical studies reporting relevant posttreatment outcomes, e.g., postop KT width ≥2 mm, on the long-term (>6 months) are warranted.

Indexed as

Esthetics, DentalConnective TissueGingivaGingival RecessionGingivoplastyHumansSurgical FlapsAttached gingivaKeratinized tissueMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialsSoft tissue augmentationSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID28108833
PMCPMC5318480

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.