SynthesisLasers in medical science2025
Efficacy of LASER for de-epithelialization of free gingival graft: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Lasers in medical science, 2025. 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.
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review primarily aimed to investigate the efficacy of de-epithelializing free gingival graft (FGG) using LASER and, secondarily, to evaluate the clinical outcomes of soft tissue augmentation using LASER-de-epithelialized connective tissue grafts (CTGs). Following PRISMA guidelines, an electronic search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases without date or language restrictions on February 4, 2025. Clinical studies employing LASER for de-epithelializing FGG were considered eligible. The primary outcome was successful epithelium removal, while the main secondary outcomes were mean and complete root coverage percentage. Quality appraisal of the included studies was executed according to the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB2) and Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I). Of 243 studies, three met all eligibility criteria. Two randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), and one pre-post study were included. CO
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.