Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36930368›Full record

Trial reportClinical oral investigations2023

Gingival phenotype changes after different periodontal plastic surgical techniques: a single-masked randomized controlled clinical trial.

Pasquale Santamaria, Michele Paolantonio, Luigi Romano, Matteo Serroni, Imena Rexhepi, Lorenzo Secondi, Giulia Paolantonio, Bruna Sinjari, Paolo De Ninis, Beatrice Femminella

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

10 authors.

Pasquale SantamariaPeriodontology Unit, Centre for Host Microbiome Interactions, Faculty of Dentistry, Oral & Craniofacial Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Michele PaolantonioDepartment of Innovative Technologies in Medicine & Dentistry, "G. D'Annunzio" University, Chieti-Pescara, Italy.
Luigi RomanoDepartment of Innovative Technologies in Medicine & Dentistry, "G. D'Annunzio" University, Chieti-Pescara, Italy.
Matteo SerroniDepartment of Innovative Technologies in Medicine & Dentistry, "G. D'Annunzio" University, Chieti-Pescara, Italy.
Imena RexhepiDepartment of Innovative Technologies in Medicine & Dentistry, "G. D'Annunzio" University, Chieti-Pescara, Italy.
Lorenzo SecondiDepartment of Surgical Science, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Tor Vergata University, Rome, Italy.
Giulia PaolantonioDepartment of Innovative Technologies in Medicine & Dentistry, "G. D'Annunzio" University, Chieti-Pescara, Italy.
Bruna SinjariDepartment of Innovative Technologies in Medicine & Dentistry, "G. D'Annunzio" University, Chieti-Pescara, Italy.
Paolo De Ninis"Luisa D'Annunzio" Institute for High Culture, Pescara, Italy.
Beatrice FemminellaDepartment of Innovative Technologies in Medicine & Dentistry, "G. D'Annunzio" University, Chieti-Pescara, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

ABSTRACT:

objectivesAim of this clinical study was to evaluate the effects on gingival thickness of three surgical techniques for root coverage: the coronally advanced flap (CAF) alone, with a sub-epithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) or with leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) membranes.

methodsSixty patients with RT1 single maxillary gingival recession were treated with CAF + L-PRF (20 patients), CAF + SCTG (20 patients) or CAF alone (20 patients). At baseline and 6-month after treatment, gingival thickness (GT), keratinized tissue width (KT), gingival recession (GR), clinical attachment level (CAL), probing depth (PD), PROMs, and the aesthetic outcome were recorded.

resultsCAF + SCTG and CAF + L-PRF groups showed a significantly greater mean GT increase than CAF alone (0.31 ± 0.10 mm) with no significant differences between CAF + SCTG (0.99 ± 0.02 mm) and CAF + L-PRF (0.92 ± 0.52 mm) groups (p = 0.55). CAF + SCTG was associated with a significantly greater KT gain (3.85 ± 1.04 mm), while in CAF + L-PRF (2.03 ± 0.53 mm) and CAF (1.50 ± 0.69 mm) groups, KT was not significantly increased. Both GR and CAL showed a significant within groups' improvement, without among-groups differences. No significant among-groups difference for the aesthetic outcome but greater discomfort and pain-killer consumption in CAF + SCTG group was detected.

conclusionAll investigated surgical techniques produced significant GR reduction and CAL gain. GT was similarly augmented by CAF + L-PRF and CAF + SCTG techniques; however, the CAF + SCTG technique produced a more predictable KT and GT increase. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results of our study suggest that the CAF + SCTG technique represents the most predictable method for the clinician to improve the gingival phenotype, an important factor for long term gingival margin stability.

Indexed as

Gingival RecessionPlastic Surgery ProceduresConnective TissueEsthetics, DentalGingivaHumansTooth RootTreatment OutcomeClinical trialGingival recessionGingival thicknessGraftsPlastic periodontal surgery

Identifiers

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.