ArticleJournal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry2025
Root coverage in Miller's Class I and II gingival recession using acellular dermal matrix and subepithelial connective tissue graft: A systematic review.
Article in Journal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) is considered the gold standard in the treatment of gingival recession. Donor site morbidity has led to the introduction of non-autogenous grafts such as acellular dermal matrix (ADM). This systematic review compared SCTG with ADM to treat root coverage in Miller's Class I and Class II gingival recession. Methods: Articles in PubMed (11), Scopus (1), EBSCO (2), and Google Scholar (1) were incorporated in this study. The studies included randomized controlled trials from 1st January 2011 to 31st December 2022. Studies that compared root coverage and reduction in recession depth using SCTG and ADM grafts were included in the review. Fourteen randomized control trials (RCTs) were included in this systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines. The risk bias assessment was assessed using the ROBINS-2 tool. Results: Of the 14 included studies, 11 articles concluded that ADM is as effective as SCTG for treating root coverage in Class I and Class II gingival recession. However, 3 studies showed a statistically significant difference between SCTG and ADM results, indicating better root coverage achieved with SCTG than with ADM. Conclusion: ADMs may be an alternative treatment in cases where multiple areas of recession where SCTGs harvested from the palate area would be insufficient.
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.