Trial reportOdontology2021
Smile esthetic evaluation of mucogingival reconstructive surgery.
Trial report in Odontology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Esthetical and patient-reported outcomes after root coverage procedures for multiple gingival recessions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Periodontology 2000 · 2025Pooled it
- Stability of biomaterials used in adjunct to coronally advanced flap: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2022Pooled it
- Retrospective Study on Orthodontic Gingival Recession Correction Using Clear Aligners.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Laypersons' Esthetic Perception of Different Dentogingival Characteristics Based on Smile Dynamics: Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of dentistry · 2024Article
- The current regenerative medicine approaches of craniofacial diseases: A narrative review.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2023Review
- Management of inadequate width of attached gingiva using mucograft.Journal of advanced pharmaceutical technology & research · 2022Article
- Smile Aesthetic Evaluation on Videographs: An Intra-Rater and Inter-Rater Agreement Study.Dentistry journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To assess the difference in smile esthetic impact of Coronally Advanced Flap (CAF) with or without the adjunct of a collagen matrix (CMX) used as root coverage procedures. Subjects with esthetic demands showing multiple upper gingival recessions of at least 2 mm, without interproximal attachment loss and cervical abrasion no more than 1 mm were recruited and randomized to CAF plus CMX or CAF alone. The Smile Esthetic Index (SEI) was adopted to quantify the quality of the smile recorded at baseline and 12 months after treatment for each treatment group. In addition, between group difference in the SEI was calculated. 24 Patients were treated and analysed. At baseline, mean gingival recession depths were 2.3 ± 0.7 mm for Test group and 2.6 ± 1.0 mm for Control group. After 1 year, the residual recession depth was 0.3 ± 0.4 mm in the CAF + CMX group and 0.6 ± 0.3 mm in the control group. The SEI at baseline was 8.1 ± 1.0 and 7.9 ± 0.7 for Test and Control group, respectively. The between groups difference at 12 months in SEI was 0.4 (95% C.I. - 0.0 to 0.8, P = 0.0697). Twelve months after treatment, CAF + CMX provided a similar SEI compared to CAF alone and the adjunct of a collagen matrix did not show a different impact on the smile esthetic appearance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.