SynthesisBMC oral health2025
Clinical efficacy of vestibular incision subperiosteal tunnel access (VISTA) for the treatment of gingival recession: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the clinical efficacy of vestibular incision subperiosteal tunnel access (VISTA) combined with various biomaterials or graft substitutes in the treatment of gingival recession.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in five English databases and four Chinese databases. Data analysis was performed using STATA 16.0 software.
resultsA total of 14 literature were included, involving 226 patients with Miller class I or II gingival recession and 526 affected teeth, including 10 cases of single gingival recession patients. The meta-analysis results showed that after treatment with VISTA combined with various biomaterials or graft substitutes, the average gingival recession depth (GRD) of patients decreased by 1.36 [MD = -1.36, 95% CI: -1.84, -0.89, Z=-5.604, P < 0.001]; the average complete root coverage (CRC) was 58% [CRC% = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.49, 0.68, Z = 11.684, P < 0.001]; the average keratinized gingiva (KG) increased by 1.32 [MD = 1.32, 95% CI: 0.92, 1.72, Z = 6.416, P < 0.001]; the average keratinized tissue thickness (KTT) increased by 0.46 [MD = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.27, 0.65, Z = 4.765, P < 0.001]; the average probing depth (PD) decreased by 0.18 [MD=-0.18, 95% CI: -0.34, -0.02, Z=-2.259, P = 0.024]; and the average clinical attachment level (CAL) decreased by 2.14 [MD=-2.14, 95% CI:-2.78, -1.51, Z=-6.611, P < 0.001].
conclusionVISTA combined with various biomaterials or graft substitutes is significantly effective in treating Miller class I or II gingival recession. These conclusions provide relevant references for the clinical selection of VISTA treatment methods.
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.