ReviewDentistry journal2024
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Surgical and Nonsurgical Treatments for Excessive Gingival Display.
Review in Dentistry journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Guiding Esthetic Crown Lengthening: A CBCT-Based Modified Classification of Altered Passive Eruption.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Excessive gingival display (EGD) is defined as more than 2 mm of gingiva display above the maxillary incisors at maximum smile. Various skeletal, dental, and soft tissue etiological factors for EGD have been suggested. This study assessed the effectiveness and stability of surgical (SX) and nonsurgical (NSX) interventions for correction of EGD through a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. An electronic search of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, and LILACS was conducted (2010-2023). Results were expressed as mean change in gingival display using the random-effects model at 1, 3, 6, and 12-month follow-up. At 1 month, SX and NSX treatments yielded a comparable mean reduction of 3.50 mm (2.13-4.86) and 3.43 mm (2.67-4.19) in gingival display, respectively. However, by 6 months, NSX treatments showed a reduction of 0.51 mm compared to 2.86 mm with SX treatments. SX outcomes remained stable past 6 months, while NSX outcomes partially relapsed at 6 months and returned to baseline levels at 12 months. Notably, NSX treatments were more effective in cases with mild initial EGD, while SX treatments showed a better outcome in severe cases. To draw more robust conclusions regarding the treatment outcomes, future primary studies of greater rigor are required.
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.