Trial reportClinical oral investigations2023
Gingival phenotype changes after different periodontal plastic surgical techniques: a single-masked randomized controlled clinical trial.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Postoperative complications at the palatal donor site following autologous soft tissue grafting: a systematic review.BMC oral health · 2026Pooled it
- Clinician- and patient-reported outcomes following the surgical treatment of single gingival recession defects: A systematic review.Periodontology 2000 · 2025Pooled it
- Analgesic effects of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF): A systematic review.Periodontology 2000 · 2025Pooled it
- Effect of suturing in root coverage via coronally advanced flaps: A systematic review.Clinical advances in periodontics · 2025Pooled it
- Collagen Matrix Versus Subepithelial Connective Tissue for Recession Coverage: A Systematic Review.Oral diseases · 2025Pooled it
- Importance of periodontal phenotype in periodontics and restorative dentistry: a systematic review.BMC oral health · 2024Pooled it
- Evaluation of gingival phenotype: the role of gingival thickness measurements from different vertical gingival levels.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Trial
- Root coverage and patient-reported outcomes of de-epithelialized gingival graft with and without leukocyte platelet-rich fibrin in multiple recession defects: a split-mouth randomized trial.Journal of periodontal & implant science · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Selected Methods for Assessing Gingival Phenotype.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Treatment of Multiple RT1 Gingival Recessions Using a Coronally Advanced Flap Associated with L-PRF or Subgingival Connective Tissue Graft from Maxillary Tuberosity: A Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
- Thermographic examination of gingival phenotypes: correlation between morphological and thermal parameters.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
36930368What 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.