ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Double Lateral Sliding Bridge Flap versus Laterally Closed Tunnel for the Treatment of Single Recessions in the Mandibular Anterior Teeth: A Pseudorandomized Clinical Trial.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: This study compared the clinical and esthetic results of the double lateral sliding bridge flap (DLSBF) and the laterally closed tunnel (LCT) techniques, with a subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG), for the treatment of single Miller class II-III recessions in the mandibular anterior teeth. (2) Methods: This pseudorandomized clinical trial evaluated 14 patients, 7 of whom were part of the DLSBF + SCTG group, with an average follow-up of 58.7 ± 24.0 months, and 7 of whom were in the LCT + SCTG group, with an average follow-up of 16.7 ± 3.3 months. Clinical and esthetic evaluations of the following parameters were performed and the results for the two groups were compared: gingival recession depth, probing depth, keratinized tissue width, gingival thickness, percentage of root coverage and root coverage esthetic score. (3) Results: After the follow-up period, each technique provided evidence of a reduction in recession depth and clinical attachment level, as well as increased keratinized tissue width and gingival thickness, with statistically significant differences (p < 0.05). The analysis showed that gingival recession depth decreased less in the DLSBF group (4.3 ± 1.2 mm to 0.6 ± 1.1 mm) than it did in the LCT group (4.9 ± 1.1 mm to 0.1 ± 0.4 mm), but no significant difference was found between the two groups. Similarly, a greater reduction in the clinical attachment level parameter was observed in the LCT group, while a greater increase in gingival thickness was observed in the DLSBF group. The presence of scars was the only parameter for which statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between the two study groups were found. (4) Conclusions: Within the limitations of the study, it indicates that the LCT + SCTG technique may be considered an optimal technique in terms of reducing gingival recession depth, complete root coverage and esthetic results for the treatment of single gingival recessions in the mandibular anterior teeth.
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.