Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36943514›Full record

Trial reportClinical oral investigations2023

Influence of graft thickness on tunnel technique procedures for root coverage: a pilot split-mouth randomized controlled trial.

Victor Aguirre Teodoro de Carvalho, Marco Antonio Marques Mattedi, Andrea Vergara-Buenaventura, Francisco Wilker Mustafa Gomes Muniz, Jonathan Meza-Mauricio, Marcelo Faveri, Danilo Lazzari Ciotti

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 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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.

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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Victor Aguirre Teodoro de CarvalhoSão Leopoldo Mandic Dental Institute and Research Centre, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Marco Antonio Marques MattediSão Leopoldo Mandic Dental Institute and Research Centre, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Andrea Vergara-BuenaventuraSchool of Dentistry, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas, Lima, Peru.
Francisco Wilker Mustafa Gomes MunizDepartment of Periodontology, Graduate Program in Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil.
Jonathan Meza-MauricioSchool of Dentistry, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad Cientifica del Sur, Calle Cantuarias 398Miraflores, 15048, Lima, Peru. emezam@cientifica.edu.pe.
Marcelo FaveriDepartment of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Dental Research Division, University of Guarulhos, Guarulhos, SP, Brazil.
Danilo Lazzari CiottiSão Leopoldo Mandic Dental Institute and Research Centre, Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Faculdade São Leopoldo Mandic · BRGuarulhos University · BRPeruvian University of Applied Sciences · PEUniversidad Científica del Sur · PEUniversidade Federal de Pelotas · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the clinical outcomes of the tunnel technique (TUN) combined with either thin connective tissue graft (CTG) (TUN + thin CTG) (1 mm) or thick CTG (TUN + thick CTG) (2 mm) for the treatment of localized gingival recession (GR). MATERIAL AND

methodsTwelve patients, with 24 maxillary localized type RT1 GR were randomly assigned into two groups. Clinical, esthetic, and patient-reported outcomes were evaluated at baseline and at 6-month follow-up.

resultsThe TUN + thin CTG group showed a higher mean GR reduction (1.53 ± 0.66) (primary outcome variable) than the TUN + thick CTG group (1.44 ± 0.89), but no statistically significant difference was detected at the 6-month follow-up (p = 0.77). No statistically significant differences were found between TUN + thin CTG and TUN + thick CTG concerning complete root coverage (CRC) (58.3% versus 41.7%, respectively), gingival ticknness (GT) or Root-coverage Esthetic Score (RES) at 6 months. Regarding patient-reported outcomes, both groups reported having experienced similar pain at 7 days (p > 0.05). No statistically significant differences were found between the groups in the analysis of the aesthetic score.

conclusionBoth treatments showed a similar reduction in GR. In addition, similar CRC, GT, RES, pain and self-reported esthetics were achieved in both groups. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Application of thin CTG provided a similar result than thick CTG for the treatment of RT1 localized GR.

Indexed as

Gingival RecessionTooth RootConnective TissueEsthetics, DentalGingivaHumansSurgical FlapsTreatment OutcomeConnective tissue graftGingival recessionsTunnel technique

Identifiers

PMID36943514
OpenAlexW4328048094

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.