ArticleBioinformation2023
A meta-analysis of amnion membrane in gingival recession.
Article in Bioinformation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy of buccal pad fat as a new approach in the treatment of gingival recession: a systematic review.BMC oral health · 2024Pooled it
- Efficacy of amniotic membrane with coronally advanced flap in the treatment of gingival recession: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2024Pooled it
- Coronally advanced flap with platelet-rich fibrin or amniotic membrane for the treatment of gingival recession: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.Evidence-based dentistry · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of amniotic membrane and titanium-prepared platelet-rich fibrin in root coverage: A randomized split-mouth clinical trial.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review was conducted to evaluate the effects of Amniotic Membrane (AM) as compared with other treatment modalities on the clinical outcomes, in gingival recession defects. Only Randomized controlled clinical trials published before 2020 were included. Studies were divided into 5 subgroups (1) Coronally advanced flap (CAF)+AM v/s Chorion membrane (CM) (2) CAF+AM v/s CAF+PRF (3) CAF+AM v/s CAF+Collagen membrane (4) CAF+AM v/s CAF (5) CAF+AM v/s CAF+ Subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG). Studies were evaluated for Recession Depth (RD) (Primary outcome); Clinical Attachment Level (CAL), Recession Width (RW) and Width of Keratinized Gingiva (WKG) (Secondary outcomes). The inverse variance approach was utilised in fixed or random effect models for the meta-analysis, which were chosen based on heterogeneity. Results suggested that the use of AM membrane showed comparable results in improving RD, RW, or CAL in the treatment of Miller Class-I and Class-II gingival recession compared to the other treatment modalities. However, CAF+AM resulted in statistically significant improvement in RD and RW than CAF+SCTG, though CAL gain was statistically more with CAF+SCTG. However, increase of WKG was found to be statistically significantly more in all the other treatment modalities as compared to CAF+AM. With properties like self-adherence, bioavailability and presence of growth factors AM with CAF can produce good aesthetic root coverage comparable to SCTG and PRF, where width of keratinized gingiva is adequate.
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.