Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32236353›Full record

Trial reportJournal of applied oral science : revista FOB2020

Gingival recession treatment with concentrated growth factor membrane: a comparative clinical trial.

Serap Karakış Akcan, Berrin Ünsal

Open access · diamondAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Serap Karakış AkcanBeykent University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Periodontology, İstanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4371-5455
Berrin ÜnsalGazi University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Periodontology, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0280-8367
Beykent University · TRGazi University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis clinical trial sought to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of concentrated growth factor (CGF) and compare it with connective tissue graft (CTG) with coronally advanced flap (CAF) in the treatment of Miller Class I gingival recessions (GR). METHODOLOGY: This split-mouth study included 74 Miller Class I isolated (24 teeth) or multiple (50 teeth) GRs in 23 jaws of 19 patients. GRs were randomly treated using CGF (test group: 37 teeth; 12 teeth in isolated GRs, 25 teeth in multiple GRs) or CTG with CAF (control group: 37 teeth;12 teeth isolated GRs, 25 teeth in multiple GRs). Clinical variables, plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), probing depth (PD), recession depth (RD), recession width (RW), clinical attachment level (CAL), keratinized tissue thickness (KTT), keratinized tissue width (KTW), and root coverage (RC) were assessed at the baseline as well as at three and six months post-surgery. Healing index (HI) were obtained in the second and third weeks post-surgery. Postoperative pain was assessed for the first seven days using a horizontal visual analog scale (VAS).

resultsNo significant change was observed in PI, GI, or PD values in either the intergroup or the intragroup comparisons. A statistically significant decrease was observed in CAL, RD, and RW, and KTT increased in all groups at three and six months compared with the baseline. The control group had greater increases in KTW, KTT, and RC at three and six months. No significant difference was found in CAL or RD at the third and sixth months between the two groups. Healing was found to be similar for both groups in the second and third weeks post-surgery. The VAS values in the control group were higher than in the test group, especially at the second, fourth, fifth, and seventh days postoperatively.

conclusionsCTG is superior to CGF with CAF for increasing KTT, KTW, and RC. CGF may be preferable due to decreased postoperative pain.

Indexed as

AdultBlood PlateletsConnective TissueDental Plaque IndexFemaleGingival RecessionHumansIntercellular Signaling Peptides and ProteinsMaleMiddle AgedPeriodontal IndexPostoperative PainReference ValuesReproducibility of ResultsStatistics, NonparametricSurgical FlapsIntercellular Signaling Peptides and Proteins

Identifiers

PMID32236353
PMCPMC7105285
OpenAlexW3013236472

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.