Trial reportClinical oral investigations2025
Efficacy of different gingival graft de-epithelialization methods: A parallel-group randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05494294 (Does the De-epithelialization Procedure Affect the Epithelial Remnants and Recession Coverage Outcomes?), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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.
Does the De-epithelialization Procedure Affect the Epithelial Remnants and Recession Coverage Outcomes?
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy of LASER for de-epithelialization of free gingival graft: a systematic review.Lasers in medical science · 2025Pooled it
- De-epithelialized gingival unit graft for gingival phenotype modification and root coverage: a randomized controlled trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- 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
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe clinical outcomes of either extra-oral (eo) or intra-oral (io) de-epithelialized connective tissue graft (DE-CTG) techniques to the recipient site have not been fully elucidated yet. There is an ongoing debate regarding the possible complications caused by incomplete elimination of the epithelial layer. The aim of this study is to compare clinical effectiveness and de-epithelialization efficacy of ioDE-CTG and eoDE-CTG in recession treatment. MATERIALS AND
methodsForty patients, with a single gingival recession, were treated with coronally advanced flap combined with eo- or ioDE-CTG. Data consisted of surgical chair-time, recipient site periodontal and patient-based variables. To evaluate the efficacy of de-epithelialization, histological analyses were also performed via graft imprints.
resultsThere was no significant inter-group difference in terms of treatment outcomes. Aesthetic results were also similar for both groups. While chair-time was significantly shorter in the ioDE group, less epithelial remnants were showed with eoDE technique.
conclusionsSimilar clinical outcomes were obtained with eo- and ioDE-CTG. While ioDE is less effective in removing the epithelial layer, no long-term complications due to the epithelial residues were detected. Both techniques can be recommended in recession treatment. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study demonstrates that extraoral and intraoral de-epithelialized connective tissue grafts in root coverage procedures led to similar clinical results without any further events. The study protocol was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05494294).
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.