Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34060733›Full record

ArticleOral health & preventive dentistry2021

Comparison of Bur Abrasion and CO2 Laser in Treatment of Gingival Pigmentation: 6 Months Follow-Up.

Behnaz Roshannia, Maryam Nourellahi, Tahere Ahmadpanahi, Anahita Norouzifard, Shiva Shivaei Kojoori

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Oral health & preventive dentistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Behnaz Roshannia
Maryam Nourellahi
Tahere Ahmadpanahi
Anahita Norouzifard
Shiva Shivaei Kojoori

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePigmentation of gingiva is an aesthetic problem. Until now, various methods have been introduced for removal of gingival pigmentation. The purpose of this study was to compare bur abrasion and CO2 laser methods in removing gingival pigmentation. MATERIALS AND

methodsTwelve patients aged 20-40 years old with the chief complaint of physiologic gingival pigmentation participated in this study. For these patients, gingival depigmentation was performed using two treatment modalities including bur abrasion and CO2 laser in a split-mouth design. Gingival depigmentation was performed in the right half of the anterior maxillary and mandibular sextants using bur abrasion method by means of diamond bur on a high-speed headpiece with vigorous water irrigation and the left half of the anterior maxillary and mandibular sextants using a CO2 laser. CO2 laser was set at: peak power 252 watts, repeat time 20 ms and pulse duration 200 microsecond which was used in a non-contact position. The area of pigmentation was calculated via gridlines in the Microsoft Paint software 1 and 6 months after the procedure. Gingival recession was also determined before, and at 1 and 6 months after the procedure.

resultsThe area of gingival pigmentation was not statistically significantly different between the two treatment modalities before the procedure (p = 0.452), 1 month (p = 0.443) and 6 months after the procedure (p = 0.202). There was no statistically significant difference in the variance of pigmented area at different times in the two methods. In both CO2 laser and bur abrasion methods, the mean area of pigmentation was statistically significantly different in the follow-up period (p < 0/001), in a way that the change in the area of pigmentation was statistically significant 1 month after treatment (p <0.001) and also 6 months after treatment (p < 0.001) compared to before. The change in the area of pigmentation between 1 and 6 months after treatment was not statistically significant in both CO2 laser (p = 0.157) and bur abrasion method (p = 0.150). No increase in gingival recession was observed in any of the patients.

conclusionBoth treatment modalities can effectively treat gingival pigmentation. No increase in gingival recession was observed. Conventional method and CO2 laser were not statistically significantly different during a follow-up period of 1 and 6 months.

Indexed as

Gingival DiseasesLasers, GasAdultFollow-Up StudiesGingivaHumansPigmentationYoung Adultbur abrasionCO2gingival depigmentationlaserpigmentation

Identifiers

PMID34060733
PMCPMC11641478
OpenAlexW3164858062

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.