Trial reportBMC oral health2024
Ceramic soft tissue trimming bur gingival depigmentation: clinical performance and patient experience. A split mouth randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06031116 (Efficacy of Ceramic Soft Tissue Trimming Bur Versus Conventional Scalpel Technique in Ginigival Depigmentation Procedure), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Efficacy of Ceramic Soft Tissue Trimming Bur Versus Conventional Scalpel Technique in Ginigival Depigmentation Procedure
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Use of a ceramic surgical bur for dental implant uncovering: A pilot randomized controlled trial.Journal of Indian Society of PeriodontologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe ceramic soft tissue trimming bur (CeraTip™) was initially introduced for use in gingivoplasty but has recently been used for gingival depigmentation. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of depigmentation between the novel CeraTip™ and the gold-standard surgical scalpel technique.
methodsEight healthy, nonsmokers with moderate to severe gingival hyperpigmentation in both arches were randomly assigned for CeraTip™ depigmentation in one arch as the test group (TG) and scalpel depigmentation in the opposite arch as the control group (CG). Pigmentation indices were used to assess clinical performance. Treatment time, pain level, and esthetic satisfaction were the parameters of patient experience. The assessments were performed at baseline, one week, one month, and three months.
resultsAt all assessment visits, pigmentation intensity represented by the Dummet oral pigmentation index (DOPI), and pigmentation distribution represented by the Hedin melanin index (MI), were significantly lower than those at baseline (p < 0.001) in both groups. When comparing the two groups, Scalpel depigmentation had better initial clinical outcomes, while CeraTip™ had less visible repigmentation, pain scores, treatment time, and greater esthetic satisfaction. However, none of the differences were statistically significant.
conclusionBoth techniques successfully removed gingival hyperpigmentation with comparable clinical performance. The patients preferred CeraTip™ depigmentation.
trial registrationThe study protocol was registered on 11/09/2023 on the www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov database (NCT06031116) after the approval of the Ethics Committee, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University (FDASU-Rec012124).
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.