Trial reportClinical oral investigations2022
The comparison of the efficacy of gingival unit graft with connective tissue graft in recession defect coverage: a randomized split-mouth clinical trial.
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. It is linked to trial NCT04637451 (The Comparison of the Efficacy of Gingival Unit Graft With Connective Tissue Graft in Root Coverage), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
The Comparison of the Efficacy of Gingival Unit Graft With Connective Tissue Graft in Root Coverage: A Randomized Split-Mouth Clinical Trial
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinician- and patient-reported outcomes following the surgical treatment of single gingival recession defects: A systematic review.Periodontology 2000 · 2025Pooled it
- De-epithelialized gingival unit graft for gingival phenotype modification and root coverage: a randomized controlled trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Comparison of conventional and modified sling suture techniques in free gingival graft operations-a randomized controlled clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- Preprosthetic vestibuloplasty performed by three different types of lasers versus conventional scalpel.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Article
- Successful management of gingival recession with creeping attachment: A case report.Clinical case reports · 2024Article
- Review
- Article
- Laterally positioned flap to treat deep isolated gingival recession in a rotated tooth. A case report.Revista cientifica odontologica (Universidad Cientifica del Sur)Article
- Comparison of the effectiveness of Gingival unit transfer and free Gingival graft in the management of localized Gingival recession - A systematic review.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesGingival unit graft (GUG) is defined as the modified form of free gingival graft. The aim of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy of GUG with connective tissue graft (SCTG) with respect to clinical periodontal parameters and patient comfort scores in gingival recessions. MATERIALS AND
methodsSixteen patients with bilateral recession type 1 (RT1) gingival recessions participated in this randomized and split-mouth study. Thirty-two defects received surgical treatment with SCTG or GUG. The recession defect coverage, periodontal measurements, and patient-reported outcomes (intra- and post-operative patient comfort, aesthetic satisfaction, and hypersensitivity) were evaluated at baseline and post-operative months 1, 3 and 6.
resultsThe favorable results were obtained in both study groups in gingival recession depth (RD), gingival recession width (RW), clinical attachment level (CAL), and keratinized tissue width (KTW). The average percentages of the recession defect coverage (RC) for GUG and SCTG group treatments after 6 months were 68.2 ± 33% and 76.4 ± 30.2%, respectively (p > 0.05). Although there was no significant difference between groups at post-operative 6 months (p > 0.05) in terms of RD, RW, CAL, RC, patient comfort, aesthetic satisfaction, and hypersensitivity parameters, the increase in KTW was significantly higher in GUG group (p < 0.05).
conclusionsIt was concluded that although both techniques were effective, GUG can be a convenient method for treatment of RT1 gingival recessions with inadequate KTW and (or) shallow vestibule depth. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: According to the results of this study, GUG may be a preferred choice in localized gingival recessions with a lack of keratinized tissue. The trial registration number: NCT04637451.
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.