Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32382922›Full record

Trial reportClinical oral investigations2020

Tunnel technique with enamel matrix derivative in addition to subepithelial connective tissue graft compared with connective tissue graft alone for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: a randomized clinical trial.

Bartłomiej Górski, Renata Górska, Joanna Wysokińska-Miszczuk, Tomasz Kaczyński

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

Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Bone Remodeling during Orthodontic Movement of Lower Incisors-Narrative Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Enamel matrix derivative and root coverage: A literature review.Revista cientifica odontologica (Universidad Cientifica del Sur)
    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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Bartłomiej GórskiDepartment of Periodontology and Oral Mucosa Diseases, Medical University of Warsaw, S. Binieckiego 6 St, 02-097, Warsaw, Poland. bartek_g3@tlen.pl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3918-4332
Renata GórskaDepartment of Periodontology and Oral Mucosa Diseases, Medical University of Warsaw, S. Binieckiego 6 St, 02-097, Warsaw, Poland.
Joanna Wysokińska-MiszczukThe Chair and Department of Periodontology, Medical University of Lublin, Karmelicka 7 St, 20-081, Lublin, Poland.
Tomasz KaczyńskiDepartment of Periodontology and Oral Mucosa Diseases, Medical University of Warsaw, S. Binieckiego 6 St, 02-097, Warsaw, Poland.
Medical University of Lublin · PLMedical University of Warsaw · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of this study was to compare outcomes of the modified coronally advanced tunnel technique (MCAT) combined with subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) with or without enamel matrix derivative (EMD), in the treatment of gingival recession types 1 and 2. MATERIALS AND

methodsA total of 20 patients with 150 multiple gingival recessions (GR) were included in the study. On one side, MCAT was combined with SCTG and EMD (tests), whereas MCAT with SCTG was applied on the contralateral side (controls). Clinical parameters were measured at baseline and 6 months after surgery. Visual analog scales (VAS) and questionnaires were used to assess patient-reported outcomes and the root coverage esthetic score (RES) for professional esthetic evaluation.

resultsMCAT+SCTG+EMD was not superior with regard to root coverage. At 6 months, average root coverage (ARC) was 87.4% for SCTG+EMD-treated and 90.9% for SCTG-treated defects (p = 0.4170). Complete root coverage (CRC) was observed in 86.7% (tests) and 85.3% (controls) of the cases (p = 0.9872). Significantly less pain was reported using VAS (p = 0.0342) post-operatively in the SCTG+EMD group. Professional assessment of esthetic outcomes using RES showed a significant difference (9.25 versus 8.71, p = 0.0103) in favor of the test group.

conclusionsBoth treatment modalities were equally effective in treatment of multiple GR and led to similar improvements in clinical parameters. However, the application of EMD as an adjunct resulted in less post-operative pain and better professionally assessed esthetic outcomes. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Patients' early morbidity and 6-month esthetic outcomes following GR coverage with MCAT might be influenced by means of EMD utilization.

Indexed as

Gingival RecessionConnective TissueEsthetics, DentalGingivaHumansSurgical FlapsTooth RootTreatment OutcomeEnamel matrix derivativeEstheticsModified coronally advanced tunnel techniqueMultiple gingival recessionsSubepithelial connective tissue graft

Identifiers

PMID32382922
PMCPMC7666664
OpenAlexW3022992620

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.