ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Comparative Effectiveness of Tunneling vs. Coronally Advanced Flap Techniques for Root Coverage: A 6-12-Month Randomized Clinical Trial.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06228534 (Root Coverage With Tunneling Technique With Connective Tissue Versus Coronal Advancement Flap Technique. A 3- and 6-month Follow-up of a Randomized Clinical Trial.), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Root Coverage With Tunneling Technique With Connective Tissue Versus Coronal Advancement Flap Technique. A 3- and 6-month Follow-up of a Randomized Clinical Trial.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of surgeon experience level on outcomes of three different root coverage procedures for RT1 gingival recession.Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2026Article
- Surgical Free Gingival Root Coverage Graft Embedded in a Modified Subperiosteal Flap: A Novel Case Report.Case reports in dentistry · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGingival recession is a common condition involving apical displacement of the gingival margin, leading to root surface exposure and associated complications such as dentin hypersensitivity and root caries. Among the most effective treatment options are the tunneling technique (TUN) and the coronally advanced flap (CAF), both combined with connective tissue grafts (CTGs). This study aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes of TUN + CTG and CAF + CTG in terms of root coverage and keratinized tissue width (KTW) over a 6-12-month follow-up.
methodsA randomized, double-blind clinical trial was conducted following CONSORT guidelines (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT06228534). Participants were randomly assigned to receive either TUN + CTG or CAF + CTG. Clinical parameters, including gingival recession depth (REC) and KTW, were assessed at baseline as well as 6 months and 12 months postoperatively using a calibrated periodontal probe. Statistical analysis was performed using descriptive statistics and linear mixed models to compare outcomes over time, with a significance level set at 5%.
resultsBoth techniques demonstrated significant clinical improvements. At 6 months, mean root coverage was 100% in CAF + CTG cases and 97% in TUN + CTG cases, while complete root coverage (REC = 0) was observed in 100% and 89% of cases, respectively. At 12 months, root coverage remained stable, at 99% in the CAF + CTG group and 97% in the TUN + CTG group. KTW increased in both groups, with higher values observed in the CAF + CTG group (3.53 mm vs. 3.11 mm in TUN + CTG at 12 months). No significant postoperative complications were reported.
conclusionsBoth TUN + CTG and CAF + CTG are safe and effective techniques for treating RT1 and RT2 gingival recession, offering high percentages of root coverage and increased KTW. While CAF + CTG achieved slightly superior coverage and tissue gain, the TUN was associated with better aesthetic outcomes and faster recovery, making it a valuable alternative in clinical practice.
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.