Trial reportClinical oral investigations2023
Tunnel vs. coronally advanced flap in combination with a connective tissue graft for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: a multi-center randomized 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. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 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.
The Use of a Connective Tissue Auto-graft in Combination With Either the Tunnel Technique or the Coronally Advanced Flap for the Treatment of Multiple Gingival Recession Defects. A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.
Root Coverage With Tunneling Technique With Connective Tissue Versus Coronal Advancement Flap Technique. A 3- and 6-month Follow-up of a Randomized Clinical Trial.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Esthetical and patient-reported outcomes after root coverage procedures for multiple gingival recessions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Periodontology 2000 · 2025Pooled it
- Collagen Matrix Versus Subepithelial Connective Tissue for Recession Coverage: A Systematic Review.Oral diseases · 2025Pooled it
- Management of Soft Tissue Defects Around Single Implants: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2024Pooled it
- De-epithelialized gingival unit graft for gingival phenotype modification and root coverage: a randomized controlled trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Increase at Small Buccal Bone Dehiscences With Either Volume-Stable Collagen Matrix or Connective Tissue Graft: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Clinical oral implants research · 2025Trial
- Mucogingival surgery techniques: Coronally advanced flap versus tunnel approach.Journal of periodontology · 2026Review
- Decoding regional keratinization in human oral mucosa through high-resolution spatial transcriptomics.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Impact of surgeon experience level on outcomes of three different root coverage procedures for RT1 gingival recession.Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2026Article
- Enhancing graft stability in coronally advanced tunnel with connective tissue graft for Cairo RT1 and RT2 gingival recession: a case series.Journal of surgical case reports · 2026Article
- Double-vestibular incision subperiosteal tunnel access (double-VISTA) with connective tissue graft for treating multiple gingival recessions: 2-year follow-up.Clinical advances in periodontics · 2026Article
- 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
- Multidisciplinary Approach to Management of the Anterior Teeth: A Case Study.Clinical case reports · 2025Article
- Comparison of Clinical and Esthetic Results of Different Techniques in the Treatment of Multiple Gingival Recessions.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2025Observational
- Comparative Effectiveness of Tunneling vs. Coronally Advanced Flap Techniques for Root Coverage: A 6-12-Month Randomized Clinical Trial.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A Novel Pre-Customized Saddle-Shape Soft Tissue Substitute for Volume Augmentation: An Ex Vivo Study in Pig Mandibles.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Modified Rotated Flap With Double-Component Releasing Incision and One-Sided Tunnel for Mandibular Gingival Recession: A Case Report.Case reports in dentistry · 2025Article
- A Comparison between the Tunnel Technique with Autogenous Grafts and Coronally Advanced Flap for Root Coverage of Multiple Gingival Recessions: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Frontiers in dentistry · 2025Article
- Randomised controlled trial comparing modified VISTA and gum drop techniques in multiple adjacent gingival recession defects.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- From Basic Science to Clinical Practice: A Review of Current Periodontal/Mucogingival Regenerative Biomaterials.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of the partial-thickness non-advanced tunnel technique (TUN) versus the coronally advanced flap (CAF), both combined with a connective tissue graft, in the treatment of multiple gingival recessions. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty-nine patients (83 teeth) affected by multiple gingival recessions were treated in two clinical centers with either the test (TUN) or the control (CAF) intervention combined with a connective tissue graft. Outcomes at 3 and 6 months after surgery included complete root coverage (CRC-primary outcome), mean root coverage (mRC), changes in recession depth (RD), probing pocket depth (PPD), and keratinized tissue height (KT). Root sensitivity and root coverage esthetic score (RES) were also evaluated at 6-month examination. Surgery duration, wound healing index (WHI), and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were additionally considered.
resultsAt 6 months, CRC was observed in 80.9% and 79.5% of the teeth treated with TUN and CAF, respectively (odds ratio = 1.2; p = 0.802). No differences between groups were also observed in terms of mRC (TUN = 94.0%; CAF = 91.1%), RD and PPD reductions, root sensitivity, RES, and WHI. KT increase was significantly higher in teeth treated with TUN (Difference in Means - MD = - 1.0 mm; p = 0.001). Surgery duration was shorter (MD = - 19.3 min; p = 0.001), and patients reported less intra-surgical pain (MD = - 16.4; p = 0.028) as well as postoperative morbidity in TUN compared with CAF.
conclusionsBoth surgical interventions showed a similar efficacy in terms of root coverage, albeit TUN was associated with a higher increase in KT and with a milder patient's surgical experience. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Both techniques have shown similar efficacy for the coverage of exposed root surfaces, although clinicians may consider TUN as less invasive.
trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov (NCT05122468).
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.