ArticleJournal of dentistry (Tehran, Iran)2016
Gingival Unit Graft Versus Free Gingival Graft for Treatment of Gingival Recession: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- De-epithelialized free gingival graft versus subepithelial connective tissue graft in the treatment of gingival recession: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of conventional and modified sling suture techniques in free gingival graft operations-a randomized controlled clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- Liquid platelet-rich fibrin in root surface biomodification during gingival recession treatment: Randomized, controlled, split-mouth, clinical trial.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2023Trial
- 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
- Comparison of acellular dermal matrix allograft (ADMA) and a subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) for the treatment of gingival recession.Journal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry · 2020Article
- Gingival unit grafts for localized gingival recession: A split mouth randomized controlled trial.Medical journal, Armed Forces IndiaArticle
- 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
- Efficacy of free gingival graft in the treatment of Miller Class I and Class II localized gingival recessions: A systematic review.Journal of Indian Society of PeriodontologyReview
- A Single-Step Root Coverage Procedure Using Modified Bridge Flap Technique and De-epithelialized Gingival Unit Graft: A Prospective Clinical Study.Contemporary clinical dentistryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
28392815PMC5376545W2156460001What 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.