Trial reportBrazilian dental journal2025
Root coverage using two surgical techniques with connective tissue graft or collagen matrix: A clinical trial.
Trial report in Brazilian dental journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compared the outcomes of Bruno (1994) and Barros et al. (2004) surgical techniques, using both subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) and xenogeneic collagen matrix (CMX), for treating bilateral gingival recession type 1 defects (BR1). In this double-blind, randomized controlled trial, eighteen patients received root coverage surgeries using either Bruno (1994) or Barros et al. (2004) technique, with SCTG or CMX randomly assigned to each side. Clinical parameters, patient-reported outcomes, and post-operative pain were assessed at baseline, 3, and 6 months. Both techniques demonstrated a significant reduction in recession depth, with median root coverage exceeding 75% across all groups. The Barros technique achieved complete root coverage in 77.8% of sites for both graft types, while the Bruno technique showed complete coverage in 55.6% of CMX sites and 66.7% of SCTG sites. Significant improvements in clinical attachment level and gingival thickness were observed in all groups (p < 0.001). CMX procedures showed shorter surgical times and lower post-operative pain scores compared to SCTG. Both techniques effectively treat RT1 gingival recessions, with SCTG showing slightly superior outcomes. CMX offers advantages in surgical time and patient comfort while achieving comparable results, providing a viable alternative to the gold standard SCTG.
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.