Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34787718›Full record

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.

Sibel Kayaalti-Yüksek, Emre Yaprak

Registry-linked trialAbstract 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. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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.

NCT04637451 nacompletednot on this map

The Comparison of the Efficacy of Gingival Unit Graft With Connective Tissue Graft in Root Coverage: A Randomized Split-Mouth Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorOkan UniversityRan2015 to 2016Enrolled16ConditionsGingival Recession, Periodontal DiseasesArmsRoot coverage treatment
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sibel Kayaalti-YüksekDepartment of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul Okan University, Istanbul, Turkey. sibelkayaalti@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5817-540X
Emre YaprakDepartment of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Kocaeli University, Kocaeli, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7797-9796
Kocaeli Üniversitesi · TROkan University · TR

Funding

Kocaeli Üniversitesi 2016/028
6 · The paper itself

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

Gingival RecessionTooth RootConnective TissueEsthetics, DentalGingivaHumansTreatment OutcomeGingival recessionGingival unitRecession defect coverageSubepithelial connective tissue graft

Identifiers

PMID34787718
OpenAlexW3214266712

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.