Trial reportScientific reports2025
Thermacut bur gingivectomy versus functional crown lengthening in management of subgingival interproximal carious lesions 12 months randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This clinical trial aimed to evaluate acquiring deep subgingival interproximal carious lesions by the mean of Thermacut bur gingivectomy, versus functional crown lengthening procedure. A total of 30 deep proximal cavities in posterior teeth were randomly assigned into two groups (n = 15); Thermacut Bur Gingivectomy (TBG) or Functional Crown Lengthening (FCL). Patient Satisfaction using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) as a primary outcome. Bleeding on Probing (BoP), Probing Depth (PD), and Crestal Bone Level (CBL) as secondary outcomes, and Marginal Integrity using Modified USPHS Criteria as a tertiary outcome, were evaluated at the baseline, immediate postoperative, 6-month, and 1-year follow-up intervals. There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding patient satisfaction in the immediate postoperative values, no statistically significant difference was found in the 6-month and 12-month intervals. Regarding BoP, no statistical significance was found between intervention and control groups at different time intervals. Regarding PD, Pre- and after 6 months, there was no significant difference in values measured in both groups, after 1 year, values measured in the intervention group were statistically significant, Regarding CBL, there was no significant difference in bone levels measured in both groups at baseline. However, in other intervals, values measured in the control group were significantly higher than those in the intervention group. Regarding Marginal Integrity, no significant differences were found between both groups at any time interval. Both Thermacut bur gingivectomy and functional crown lengthening techniques are valid treatments for the management of deep subgingival interproximal carious lesions in vital teeth. However, Thermacut bur was superior to functional crown lengthening in terms of preserving the alveolar bone crest. Clinical Significance: Thermacut bur gingivectomy is an alternative to solve the shortcomings of functional crown lengthening.
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.