ReviewCureus2025
Open-Flap Versus Minimally Invasive Flapless Techniques in Esthetic Crown Lengthening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Cureus, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Excessive gingival display (EGD) represents a high negative effect on the esthetic appearance. Esthetic crown lengthening (ECL) surgery is the cornerstone for the treatment of the gingival smile. However, whether to proceed with open-flap (OF) or minimally invasive flapless (FL) techniques remains unclear. We aimed in this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes between OF and FL in ECL surgeries. We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, and Web of Science (WOS) for randomized controlled trials including EGD patients undergoing ECL surgery with either OF or FL techniques. The primary outcome was the mean change of relative gingival margin (rGM), while the secondary outcomes were the mean changes in bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), relative clinical attachment level (rCAL), and keratinized gingiva height (KGH). Continuous outcomes were assessed using standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in a random-effects model. STATA 19MP (StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX) was used to pool all the statistical analyses. We included five RCTs with 180 patients in the analysis. Minimally invasive FL technique was associated with a significant reduction of rGM (SMD = -0.38; 95% CI -0.58 to -0.19,
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.