Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33928441›Full record

SynthesisClinical oral investigations2021

Efficacy of microsurgery and comparison to macrosurgery for gingival recession treatment: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Riccardo Di Gianfilippo, I-Ching Wang, Larissa Steigmann, Diego Velasquez, Hom-Lay Wang, Hsun-Liang Chan

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Thermal Evaluation of Bone Drilling with a One-Drill Protocol.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Revisiting failures in mucogingival surgery.Medical journal, Armed Forces India
    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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Riccardo Di GianfilippoDepartment of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan - School of Dentistry, 1011 North University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2579-9464
I-Ching WangDepartment of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan - School of Dentistry, 1011 North University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9636-2038
Larissa SteigmannDepartment of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan - School of Dentistry, 1011 North University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7958-1124
Diego VelasquezDepartment of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan - School of Dentistry, 1011 North University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Hom-Lay WangDepartment of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan - School of Dentistry, 1011 North University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4238-1799
Hsun-Liang ChanDepartment of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan - School of Dentistry, 1011 North University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. hlchan@umich.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5952-0447
University of Michigan · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesMicrosurgical principles, techniques, and armamentarium have made significant contributions to the periodontal plastic surgery. The present meta-analysis aimed to investigate the overall efficacy of microsurgery on root coverage, and its clinical outcomes when compared to traditional macrosurgery. MATERIAL AND

methodsElectronic searches on PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL were used to retrieve prospective clinical trials. Primary outcomes were the mean root coverage (mRC) and probability of achieving complete root coverage (cRC), with secondary outcomes as other periodontal parameters and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

resultsNineteen studies were included in the quantitative analysis. Microsurgery was estimated to achieve 83.3% mRC and 69.3% cRC. From a subgroup of 9 comparative studies, it was estimated microsurgery increased mRC by 6.6% (p<0.001) and cRC by 27.9% (p<0.01) compared to macrosurgical control treatments. Operating microscope (OM) yielded a significantly 6.7% higher mRC than the control group (p=0.002), while using loupes showed 6.16% increase in mRC with a borderline significance (p=0.09). OM and loupes-only had a 31.05% (p=0.001) and 25.54% (p=0.001) increases in achieving cRC compared to control, respectively. As for PROMs, microsurgery reduced postoperative pain (p<0.001) and enhanced esthetics (p= 0.05).

conclusionsMicrosurgery significantly improved mean root coverage, probability of achieving complete root coverage, esthetics, and post-surgical recovery. Microsurgery enhances not only subclinical healing but also clinical outcomes, possibly owing to its minimally invasive approach and surgical precision. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Periodontal plastic microsurgery is minimally invasive, inducing less surgical trauma and ultimately resulting in improved clinical outcomes, patient's satisfaction, and quality of life.

Indexed as

Gingival RecessionConnective TissueEsthetics, DentalGingivaHumansMicrosurgeryProspective StudiesQuality of LifeSurgical FlapsTooth RootTreatment OutcomeConnective tissueGingival recessionMicrosurgeryMinimally invasive surgical proceduresPlastic surgerySurgical flaps

Identifiers

PMID33928441
OpenAlexW3157649901

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.