ArticleJournal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry2024
Comparison of tunnel and VISTA techniques for multiple gingival recession treatment: A systematic literature review.
Article in Journal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Gingival recession (GR) has become one of the most common concerns in oral mucosal diseases. It causes discomfort such as root hypersensitivity, root caries, and aesthetic problems, leading to the development of various surgical techniques to address GRs. This study compared the non-advanced tunnel and m-VISTA techniques in treating multiple GRs. Methods: A literature search related to the efficiency of non-advanced tunnel and m-VISTA techniques was conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (ScienceDirect), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library), Springer Link, and Google Scholar. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting periodontal parameters published in the recent four years (2019-2023) were included and assessed for the risk of bias. All in vitro, animal, pilot studies, case reports, and case series were excluded. Results: Five RCTs were included with 195 cases of GRs. Comparing the two techniques revealed a significant increase in keratinized tissue width (KTW) from baseline to 6 months (-1.4 mm), in clinical attachment level (CAL) (-2.65 mm), and in recession depth (-2.7 mm) for the tunnel technique. On the other hand, a significant increase in GR width (-2.26 mm) was found in the m-VISTA group. Finally, there were no significant differences in probing depths. Conclusion: Both techniques were effective in root coverage and may be valuable for treating multiple GRs.
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.