SynthesisJournal of periodontal research2026
Histological Outcomes of Root Coverage Procedures: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of periodontal research, 2026. 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.
- 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
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
objectiveTo answer the focused PEOS question: In animals or humans with gingival recession defects (P) what are the histological outcomes (O) of different root coverage procedures (RCPs) (E) in preclinical or clinical studies (S)?
methodsElectronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) were searched for eligible studies reporting histological outcomes of RCPs in large-animal models or humans. Histomorphometric data from animal studies were summarized as pooled means (PM) for each RCP and compared between different RCPs using effect sizes (ES) based on random-effects meta-analyses.
resultsOverall, 41 preclinical (32 canine-, 5 porcine-, 4 primate-models) and 43 clinical studies, mostly case reports/series, were included. The most frequently reported RCPs were coronally advanced flaps with or without connective tissue grafts or soft-tissue substitutes. Biologicals, such as enamel matrix derivatives (EMD) or membranes, were sometimes used as adjuncts in RCPs. In human biopsies, healing following RCPs mostly occurred via the formation of long junctional epithelium (JE) and connective tissue (CT) adhesion. Some degree of periodontal regeneration was reported in half of the studies. In canine studies with experimentally created defects and limited observation times, PM of new bone, cementum, and CT attachment ranged from 0.17 to 0.50, 0.97 to 2.39, and 1.31 to 2.47, respectively. Meta-analyses revealed significantly greater new cementum with inserting fibers when using biologicals, particularly EMD (ES 0.86-0.92), or membranes (ES 0.87) as adjuncts in RCPs.
conclusionHealing following RCPs is generally characterized by "repair" (long JE and CT adhesion). Based on animal studies, the adjunctive use of biologicals or membranes in RCPs may enhance periodontal regeneration at least in the short term.
trial registrationPROSPERO: CRD42024628844.
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.