ArticleMaxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery2025
Comparison between the surgical scalpel and carbon dioxide laser in managing excessive gingival display using lip repositioning technique: a randomized controlled clinical study.
Article in Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Management of Gingival Overgrowth During Orthodontic Treatment Using a Blue Laser: A Case Report.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- Photobiomodulation and Low-Level Laser Therapy as Complementary Strategies in Diabetes Treatment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Effective Management of a Pregnancy Tumor Using a Soft Tissue Diode Laser: A Case Report and Literature Review.Journal of lasers in medical sciences · 2026Article
- Evaluation of cutting accuracy and thermal damage in oral soft tissue using different surgical techniques.Lasers in medical science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExcessive gingival display is a common and often distressing aesthetic concern among patients. With the increasing emphasis on dental aesthetics, it has become essential to investigate and develop various treatment modalities to address patients' expectations. Achieving a balanced and attractive smile has therefore become a key challenge for dental practitioners worldwide.
methodsThis study is a single-center, parallel, randomized controlled open-label trial aimed to compare performing lip repositioning surgery (LRS) utilizing carbon dioxide (CO₂) laser with conventional scalpel in managing excessive gingival display (EGD) (4-6 mm) with special consideration to lip dimensions, and 20 participants were included in this study setting in the Faculty of Dentistry, 70% females and 30% males, with an average age of 26.4 and 24.8 years in laser and scalpel groups, respectively, randomly allocated into two groups. All patients fulfilled the study. A partial thickness flap was excised from the vestibule, with both edges of the donor wound closed using sutures; clinical measurements were recorded preoperatively and followed up for 6 months.
resultsPostoperative pain was significantly reduced in the laser group; both groups demonstrated a significant decrease in gingival display at 6-month post-operation: external upper lip length was significantly longer in the laser group in smile position at 1-month post-operation, and internal upper lip length at rest was significantly longer in the scalpel group at 3-month post-surgery (significance level was set at P < 0.05).
conclusionsThe CO₂ laser is an effective, safe, and conservative alternative to the scalpel in performing LRS, offering decreased pain and improved visualization. Adequate training in laser techniques and safety is essential.
trial registrationThe study is registered at International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial, registration number ISRCTN.
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.