ArticleJournal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran)2022
A Comparison between Mucoderm® and Connective Tissue Graft for Root Coverage.
Article in Journal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomaterials for Guided Tissue Regeneration and Guided Bone Regeneration: A Review.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
- Gene Therapeutic Drug pCMV-VEGF165 Plasmid ('Neovasculgen') Promotes Gingiva Soft Tissue Augmentation in Rabbits.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Association of the Osseodensification Technique with Soft Tissue Substitute in a Limitrophe Edentulous Area: A Clinical Case Report with 5-Year Follow-Up.Case reports in dentistry · 2024Article
- Porcine-derived Acellular Dermal Matrix for Temporary Soft Tissue Coverage in Locally Advanced Angiosarcoma of the Face - A Soft Tissue Odyssey?In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
- Unveiling the best: A comparative analysis of three grafted materials for root coverage - A randomized controlled clinical trial.Journal of Indian Society of PeriodontologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Statement of the Problem: Subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) is the gold stand-ard treatment for root coverage procedure; however, this technique has limitations such as the need for a donor site and the difficulty of the harvesting procedure. The potential bene-fits of Mucoderm®, a collagen matrix derived from porcine dermis, as an alternative treat-ment for root coverage can be investigated. Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Mucoderm® for root coverage and compare its results with SCTG. Materials and Method: This double-blind split-mouth randomized clinical trial was con-ducted on seven patients with 12 bilateral gingival recessions (24 recession sites). Coronally advanced flap + Mucoderm® was applied on one side and coronally advanced flap + con-nective tissue graft (CTG) was applied on the contralateral side. We measured the periodon-tal pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL), recession depth (RD), keratinized tissue width (KTW) and gingival thickness (GT) with a surgical stent at baseline (preopera-tively) and at 1, 3 and 6 months postoperatively. The Wilcoxon and Friedman tests were used to analyse the data. Results: The mean percentage of root coverage was 26% in the Mucoderm® group and 60% in the SCTG group at 6 months, compared with baseline. The mean percentage of root coverage was significantly different between the two groups ( Conclusion: The results of this study showed that Mucoderm® might not be an appropriate alternative for the CTG in root coverage procedures.
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.