Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28392815›Full record

ArticleJournal of dentistry (Tehran, Iran)2016

Gingival Unit Graft Versus Free Gingival Graft for Treatment of Gingival Recession: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Niloofar Jenabian, Mohadese Yazdanpanah Bahabadi, Ali Bijani, Morteza Rahimi Rad

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of dentistry (Tehran, Iran), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
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

4 authors.

Niloofar JenabianAssociate Professor, Oral Health Research Center, Department of the Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran.
Mohadese Yazdanpanah BahabadiAssistant Professor, Department of the Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran.
Ali BijaniSocial Determinants of Health Research Center, Health Research Institute, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran.
Morteza Rahimi RadPeriodontist, Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Golestan University of Medical Sciences, Gorgan, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesGingival recession can lead to root exposure and discomfort for patients. There are various techniques for root coverage. The aim of this study was to compare the use of gingival unit graft (palatal graft including the marginal gingiva and papillae) with free gingival graft for treatment of localized gingival recession. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this randomized controlled clinical trial, 18 bilateral localized recessions of Miller class I and II were treated in nine systemically healthy patients. Recessions were randomly treated with gingival unit graft in one side and conventional free gingival graft in the other side. Clinical parameters including clinical attachment level, keratinized tissue width, probing depth and vertical recession depth (VRD) were recorded at baseline and at one, three and six months after surgery. The healing index and patient satisfaction were also evaluated. One-way and two-way repeated measures ANOVA and paired t-test were used for statistical analyses.

resultsBoth techniques caused significant improvement in clinical parameters. Gingival unit graft produced higher satisfaction esthetically (P=0.050, 0.024 and 0.024, respectively at the three time points), higher healing index (P<0.001), higher root coverage percentage at one month after surgery (34.04%, P=0.011) and greater reduction of recession width three months after surgery (P=0.007) but the reduction in VRD at this side was not significantly greater.

conclusionsGingival unit graft might be an acceptable modality in Miller Class I/II recession defects. This technique may have advantages over free gingival graft such as significantly superior clinical and esthetic results.

Indexed as

Gingival RecessionTooth RootTransplantation, AutologousTransplants

Identifiers

PMID28392815
PMCPMC5376545
OpenAlexW2156460001

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.