Trial reportBMC oral health2025
Comparison of conventional and micro-surgical techniques for gingival augmentation by free gingival grafting: a randomized controlled clinical trial.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of the present study was to compare the conventional and micro-surgical techniques to increase the keratinized gingiva width (KGW) by free gingival grafting (FGG). The primary outcome was the percentage of graft shrinkage. Clinical and esthetics results, postoperative complications, and patient-related parameters were also evaluated as secondary outcomes. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted on 22 patients (68% females, mean age of 43.40 ± 11.21 years) who required FGG to increase their KGW. The patients were randomly assigned to two groups (n = 11) of microsurgery and conventional surgery (control). In the microsurgery group, all surgical processes (except graft harvesting) were conducted under magnification (x4- x10) using a surgical microscope. The primary outcome was graft shrinkage, measured by comparing graft dimensions over 3 months. Secondary outcomes included KGW, operative time, color match, root coverage esthetic score (RCES), healing index (HI), postoperative pain, edema, bleeding, and patient satisfaction. Data were analyzed by independent t-test, repeated measures ANOVA, Bonferroni test, and Mann-Whitney test (α = 0.05).
resultsGraft shrinkage at 3 months showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups (p > 0.05). KGW increase was similar in both groups (p > 0.05). The micro-surgery group had significantly better color match (p = 0.04), faster early healing (p = 0.009), and lower pain (first week, p = 0.04) and edema (p < 0.05 on days 4-5) than the conventional group. However, the micro-surgery group required significantly more operative time (100.82 ± 19.11 min versus 78.09 ± 3.67 min; p = 0.003).
conclusionDespite no significant difference in the primary outcome (graft shrinkage), the micro-surgical approach resulted in faster tissue healing, better color match, and reduced early postoperative pain and edema. Clinically, these advantages should be weighed against the longer operative time and equipment requirements.
trial registrationIranian Registry of Clinical Trials IRCT20211022052841N1 registered on [05/11/2021].
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.