Observational studyJournal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.]2025
Comparison of Clinical and Esthetic Results of Different Techniques in the Treatment of Multiple Gingival Recessions.
Observational study in Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.], 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06509165 (Comparison of Clinical and Aesthetic Results of Different Techniques in the Treatment of Gingival Recession), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Comparison of Clinical and Aesthetic Results of Different Techniques in the Treatment of Gingival Recession
Who cites it
3 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
- Success in Gingival Recession Coverage: Prognostic Indicators From Private Practice.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Comparison of Clinical and Esthetic Results of Different Techniques in the Treatment of Multiple Gingival Recessions.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2025Observational
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
objectiveThis clinical study aimed to compare the short-term (6-month) outcomes of root coverage using a subepithelial connective tissue graft with either a modified coronally advanced flap or the tunnel technique in the treatment of recession type I multiple gingival recessions. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 29 patients (9 males, 20 females) aged 19-59 years were included, with 68 gingival recession defects (24 in the mandible and 44 in the maxilla). Participants were divided into two groups: Group 1 (n = 14) received root coverage using a subepithelial connective tissue graft with the modified coronally advanced flap, while Group 2 (n = 15) was treated using the tunnel technique. Clinical and esthetic outcomes were assessed at 1 and 6 months postoperatively.
resultsAt the 6-month follow-up, no statistically significant differences were found between the groups in plaque index, gingival index, papilla height, papilla width, clinical attachment level, or probing depth (p > 0.05). While recession depth significantly decreased and keratinized gingival width increased in both groups (p < 0.05), no intergroup differences were observed (p > 0.05). Mean root coverage was 54.26% ± 29.5% in Group 1 and 63% ± 36% in Group 2 (p > 0.05). Esthetic outcomes were evaluated using the Root Coverage Esthetic Score (RES), with mean scores of 6.41 ± 2.02 in Group 1 and 6.94 ± 2.09 in Group 2; no significant difference was observed between the groups (p > 0.05).
conclusionWithin the study's limitations, both surgical techniques yielded comparable clinical and esthetic outcomes at 6 months. CLINICAL CONSIDERATIONS: In this study, the clinical and esthetic outcomes of treating patients with multiple gingival recession defects using a subepithelial connective tissue graft with either the modified coronally advanced flap technique or the tunnel technique were compared. The results demonstrated that both techniques achieved successful outcomes.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06509165.
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.