Trial reportJournal of clinical periodontology2026
Clinical Evaluation of Absorbable Gradient Membrane vs. Free Gingival Grafts for Periodontal Soft-Tissue Augmentation: A Randomised Controlled Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Journal of clinical periodontology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Evaluation of Absorbable Gradient Membrane vs. Free Gingival Grafts for Periodontal Soft-Tissue Augmentation: A Randomised Controlled Clinical Trial.Journal of clinical periodontology · 2026Trial
- Electrospun Fibers EncapsulatingMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo assess a new material in comparison with free gingival graft (FGG) for increasing the width of keratinised tissue (KT). MATERIAL AND
methodsForty-six participants were randomly allocated to the absorbable gradient membrane (AGM) or the FGG group. This trial used inter-patient comparison to establish the non-inferiority of AGM compared to FGG. The primary outcome (KT) was examined from baseline to 3 years after surgery. Secondary outcomes included the plaque index (PI), bleeding index (BI), gingival recession (GR), probing depth (PD), immunoglobulin E (IgE) level, postoperative pain, aesthetics and patient satisfaction.
resultsThe width of KT in the AGM group was non-inferior to that of the FGG group at all short-term follow-ups (1, 3 and 6 months), with a pre-defined margin of 1 mm. However, this non-inferiority disappeared by 3 years after operation. From 6 months to 3 years, the GR associated with FGG significantly decreased, while that associated with AGM showed no significant change between adjacent time points. No significant differences were observed in PI, BI, PD or IgE levels between the groups. AGM required shorter surgery times and secured better aesthetic outcomes than FGG.
conclusionAGM showed short-term non-inferiority to FGG for KT augmentation. However, the non-inferiority was not sustained at 3 years.
trial registrationThe study was registered with the China Clinical Trial Center under ChiCTR2000034683. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.
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.