ArticleInternational journal of organ transplantation medicine2022
Amniotic Allograft, A Possible Alternative to Free Gingival Graft in Improving Attached Gingiva Width: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.
Article in International journal of organ transplantation medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Years of research have well demonstrated the pivotal role the attached gingiva plays in maintaining of periodontal health. Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of two technics, amniotic allograft and free gingival graft (FGG), in improving the attached gingiva width (AGW) around the teeth. Methods: In this randomized controlled clinical trial study, 28 patients all in need of increased AGW were randomly halved and assigned to a test group receiving the amniotic allograft and a control group treated by a palatal FGG. Following the operation, the mean AGW, graft shrinkage, and color match were assessed and photographed at various intervals (1, 2, 6, and 12 weeks). The level of pain was also evaluated based on the visual analog scale (VAS). Results: The AGW was not significantly different between the two groups in 2, 6 and, 12 weeks postoperatively (P=0.17, 0.73, 0.76 respectively). The same applied to the amount of shrinkage between the two groups at the intervals (p=0.38, p=0.57 and p=0.52 respectively). The amniotic allograft group was superior (not significantly) in terms of the color match (p=0.59, p=0.31 and p=0.18 respectively). However, it was found to have significantly lower VAS pain scores than did the control group (p <0.05). Conclusion: Application of the amniotic allograft could decrease the postoperative pain as well as discomfort and effectively increase the AGW. Therefore, given the drawbacks of FGG, the amniotic allograft can be considered as a viable alternative.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37383420PMC10294031W4382502131What 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.