ArticleArchives of plastic surgery2021
Early wound healing of the hard-palate mucosal harvest site using artificial dermis fixation by a transparent plate.
Article in Archives of plastic surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere are currently no guidelines for the postoperative wound management of the hard-palate donor site in cases involving mucosal harvesting. This study describes our experiences with the use of an artificial dermis for early epithelialization and transparent plate fixation in cases involving hard-palate mucosal harvesting.
methodsA transparent palatal plate was custom-fabricated using a thermoplastic resin board. After mucosal harvesting, an alginic acid-containing wound dressing (Sorbsan) was applied to the donor site, which was then covered with the plate. After confirming hemostasis, the dressing was changed to artificial dermis a few days later, and the plate was fixed to the artificial dermis. The size of the mucosal defect ranged from 8×25 to 20×40 mm.
resultsPlate fixation was adequate, with no postoperative slippage or infection of the artificial dermis. There was no pain at the harvest site, but a slight sense of incongruity during eating was reported. Although the fabrication and application of the palatal plate required extra steps before and after harvesting, the combination of the artificial dermis and palatal plate was found to be very useful for protecting the mucosal harvest site, and resulted in decreased pain and earlier epithelialization.
conclusionsThe combination of artificial dermis and a transparent palatal plate for wound management at the hard-palate mucosal donor site resolved some of the limitations of conventional methods.
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.