ArticleMedical journal, Armed Forces India
Gingival unit grafts for localized gingival recession: A split mouth randomized controlled trial.
Article in Medical journal, Armed Forces India. 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.
- Evaluating the therapeutic potential ofJournal 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The interaction between the recipient area and the graft is one of the key factors in the success of periodontal plastic surgery. This randomized controlled, split-mouth, double-blinded clinical trial aimed to compare the clinical and aesthetic outcomes of epithelialized palatal graft (EPG) and gingival unit graft (GUG) in achieving root coverage in localized (Recession Type 1) RT1 recession defects. Methods: Twenty participants with forty bilateral recession defects randomly received EPG or GUG surgical treatment modalities for each of the recession defects. Clinical measurements recorded at baseline and after six months included recession depth (RD), recession width (RW), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), keratinized tissue width (KTW), and the average width of mesial and distal interdental papilla (aWIDP). Results: There was a statistically significant greater mean root coverage (MRC) percentage at GUG sites (80.68 ± 16.12%) in comparison to EPG sites (71.05 ± 17.23%) ( Conclusion: GUG showed a better MRC, aesthetics and increased KTW. Root coverage procedures often need to suffice the dual objective of coverage and aesthetics at the same time. GUG is a simple modification of the conventional EPG that can provide better clinical and aesthetic outcomes.
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.