ArticleBMC oral health2025
Evaluation of palatal donor site wound healing with concentrated growth factor after gingival graft procedures.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effects of cyanoacrylate and concentrated growth factor on wound healing and patient comfort at the palatal donor site: a randomized controlled clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Article
- Article
- Two-Step Palatal Shield Technique Using Flowable Composite Resin for Donor-Site Protection Following De-Epithelialized Free Gingival Grafting: A Case Report Illustrating a Novel Technique.Case reports in dentistry · 2026Article
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
objectivesHealing of the palatal donor site and patient comfort after free gingival grafting are a challenge for clinicians. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate and compare the effects of concentrated growth factor (CGF) and gelatin sponge on palatal wound healing and patient comfort following free gingival graft harvesting. MATERIALS AND
methodsData were collected from 33 patients who underwent palatal wound management with CGF and absorbable gelatin sponge after free gingival graft harvesting. Epithelialization of the wound was assessed using the H₂O₂ test, while pain intensity was measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Both evaluations were performed on the 3rd postoperative day and at weekly intervals (1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th weeks). Analgesic consumption was recorded in three periods: T1 (days 1–3), T2 (days 3–7), and T3 (days 7–14).
resultsVAS pain scores did not differ significantly between the groups at any time point, though control group scores were higher on day 3. All patients had complete epithelialization by week 4, with the test group showing faster epithelialization at weeks 2 and 3 (not statistically significant). The control group required significantly more analgesic tablets than the test group on postoperative day 3 and throughout the healing period.
conclusionsPalatal wound healing, pain perception, and analgesic consumption were comparable between CGF and absorbable gelatin sponge dressings.
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.