Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34536136›Full record

Trial reportClinical oral investigations2022

Gingival recession treatment with enamel matrix derivative associated with coronally advanced flap and subepithelial connective tissue graft: a split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial with molecular evaluation.

Alexandra Tavares Dias, Claudia Callegaro de Menezes, Sergio Kahn, Ricardo Guimarães Fischer, Carlos Marcelo da Silva Figueredo, Gustavo Vicentis de Oliveira Fernandes

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Enamel matrix derivative and root coverage: A literature review.Revista cientifica odontologica (Universidad Cientifica del Sur)
    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 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Alexandra Tavares DiasDepartment of Periodontology, Dental School, Rio de Janeiro State University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Claudia Callegaro de MenezesDepartment of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry at Universidade do Grande Rio (UNIGRANRIO), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Sergio KahnDepartment of Periodontology, Dental School, Rio de Janeiro State University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Ricardo Guimarães FischerDepartment of Periodontology, Dental School, Rio de Janeiro State University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Carlos Marcelo da Silva FigueredoSchool of Dentistry and Oral Health and Menzies, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia.
Gustavo Vicentis de Oliveira FernandesPeriodontics and Biomaterials, Faculty of Dental Medicine at the Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Viseu, Portugal. gustfernandes@gmail.com.
Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro · BRGriffith University · AUUniversidade Católica Portuguesa · PTUniversidade Unigranrio · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) on periodontal healing after root coverage (RC) surgery, involving CAF in combination with SCTG, and to assess the molecular profile, verifying the inflammation level in early stage (1 and 2 weeks). MATERIALS AND

methodsThirty-two recessions (RT1) were submitted to periodontal surgery with (test) or without (control) EMD. The clinical parameters analyzed on the day of surgery and 6 months after the surgical procedure were as follows: recession height and width, keratinized tissue height, percentual root coverage, and the gingival thickness of keratinized tissue. Moreover, the main inflammatory biomarkers and growth factors (IL-1β, IL-6, IL-8, FGF, MIP-1α and β, PDGF, TNF-α, and VEGF) were evaluated at baseline, 7, and 14 days after procedures.

resultsThe average root coverage was significantly higher in the test group as compared to the control group (86% vs. 66%, p = 0.008). The test side had significantly lesser final RH compared to the control side (p = 0.01). Also, there was a significant reduction of RW in both groups, with more significant results in the test group. KTH and GT were not significantly different at any time and group. After 14 days, the immunological analysis showed an increase of VEGF (p = 0.03) on the test group compared to the control side.

conclusionThe use of EMD in RC surgeries resulted in a significantly higher RC, as well as a significant increase in VEGF expression, suggesting that EMD may contribute to the angiogenic and healing process. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: EMD provided better results in root coverage treatment when associated with CAF and SCTG, beyond a greater releasing of angiogenic growth factor (VEGF), which enhanced the result.

Indexed as

Dental Enamel ProteinsGingival RecessionConnective TissueGingivaHumansTooth RootTreatment OutcomeDental Enamel ProteinsCytokinesEmdogainEnamel matrix derivativeGingival recessionHealingRoot coverage

Identifiers

PMID34536136
OpenAlexW3200984592

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.