ArticleFrontiers in dentistry2020
Use of Mucograft Collagen Matrix
Article in Frontiers in dentistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing Connective Tissue Grafts and Collagen Matrix in Modified Coronally Advanced Tunnel Technique for RT1 Gingival Recession: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- The Impact of Cytokines Expression in Peri-implant Crevicular Fluid Associated with Keratinized Tissue Augmentation via Xenogeneic Collagen Matrix: A Pilot Study.European journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Modified Coronally Advanced Flaps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
- Apical Positioned Flap with a Combination of Mucograft and Fibro-Gide for Augmenting Keratinized Gingiva with Thin Gingival Phenotype: A Case Report.European journal of dentistry · 2025Article
- Effect of Porcine-Derived Collagen Membrane Crosslinking on Intraoral Soft Tissue Augmentation: A Canine Model.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Biomaterials for Guided Tissue Regeneration and Guided Bone Regeneration: A Review.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
- A Combined Approach Using Strip Grafts and Xenogenic Dermal Matrix for Peri-Implant Keratinized Mucosa Augmentation in the Mandible: A Case Series.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Article
- A Novel Prehydrated Porcine-Derived Acellular Dermal Matrix: A Histological and Clinical Evaluation.International journal of biomaterials · 2024Article
- The efficacy of a porcine collagen matrix in keratinized mucosa width augmentation: a 10-year follow-up clinical prospective study.International journal of implant dentistry · 2023Article
- The Use of Collagen Matrix in the Treatment of Gingival Recession-A Pilot Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Management of inadequate width of attached gingiva using mucograft.Journal of advanced pharmaceutical technology & research · 2022Article
- Natural polymer-based scaffolds for soft tissue repair.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Review
- Collagen matrix versus free gingival graft for augmentation of keratinized tissue in mandibular anterior teeth: A comparative clinical study.Journal of Indian Society of PeriodontologyArticle
- Intraoral lobular capillary hemangioma in the esthetic zone.Journal of Indian Society of PeriodontologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the mucograft collagen matrix (CM) to increase keratinized tissue around teeth compared to free gingival graft (FGG). MATERIALS AND
methodsThe present double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial studied 12 patients who had 2 mm or less keratinized gingiva bilaterally around mandibular premolars. The 6-month width of keratinized tissue, periodontal parameters (preoperatively and 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively), color match, pain, and total surgical time were measured.
resultsThe mean dimensional change of keratinized gingiva 6 months postoperatively was 4.1±0.7 mm for FGG and 8±1.7 mm for CM. Periodontal parameters were not affected in the two groups. The CM group had a significantly lower pain, experienced less surgery time, and gained better aesthetics compared to the FGG group.
conclusionCM appears to be a suitable substitute for FGG in procedures designed to increase keratinized tissue around teeth. It has remarkable benefits, such as acceptable keratinized tissue gain, less pain, less surgical chair time, and better aesthetics.
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.