ArticleJournal of periodontal & implant science2025
Modified tunnel technique with and without enamel matrix derivative for deep and narrow gingival recession in the mandibular anterior region: a 3-year longitudinal and retrospective cohort population-based study.
Article in Journal of periodontal & implant science, 2025. 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.
- Clinical and aesthetic outcomes of enamel matrix derivative and subepithelial connective tissue graft using the modified coronally advanced tunnel technique: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2026Trial
- Research progress of enamel matrix derivative on periodontal tissue regeneration: a narrative review.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2025Review
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
Abstract
purposeThis study was conducted to evaluate the 3-year predictability and validity of the modified tunnel technique, both with and without the use of enamel matrix derivative (EMD), for treating deep and narrow gingival recession defects (GRDs) in the mandibular anterior region.
methodsOverall, 31 GRDs were treated using the modified tunnel technique combined with subepithelial connective tissue graft. The cohort was divided into 2 groups: one with the adjunctive use of EMD (n=16) and the other without EMD (n=15). Clinical outcomes, including recession depth (RD), keratinized tissue width (KTW), mean root coverage (MRC), and complete root coverage (CRC), were evaluated at baseline, as well as at 6 months, 1 year, and 3 years postoperatively. Patient discomfort was assessed with a self-report questionnaire 2 weeks after surgery.
resultsAt the 3-year follow-up, no statistically significant differences were observed between the 2 treatment modalities in clinical parameters, including RD (EMD, -6.47±2.23 mm; non-EMD, -5.10±3.23 mm), KTW (EMD, 1.03±0.96 mm; non-EMD, 1.00±1.02 mm), MRC (EMD, 86.62%±21.18%; non-EMD, 80.24%±38.73%), and CRC (EMD, 62.5%; non-EMD, 73.3%). Furthermore, no significant differences were found between the groups in terms of early and subjective postoperative discomfort, including pain and swelling.
conclusionsWithin the limitations of this study, the modified tunnel technique, whether used alone or in conjunction with EMD, demonstrated benefits in the treatment and maintenance of deep and narrow GRDs.
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.