SynthesisOdontology2026
Clinical efficacy of free gingival graft versus collagen matrix for peri-implant soft tissue augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Odontology, 2026. 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
Peri-implant soft tissue augmentation is a critical procedure in dental implant therapy. Free gingival graft (FGG) and collagen matrix (CM) are commonly used methods for peri-implant soft tissue augmentation, yet the comparative clinical outcomes remain controversial. The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of FGG versus CM in peri-implant soft tissue augmentation through a meta-analysis. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 statement. The study protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (Registration number: 23-205). Literature searches were performed across multiple databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, the cochrane library (incorporating the cochrane central register of controlled trials), embase, MEDLINE, CNKI, Wanfang data, VIP, and specialized oral health databases (e.g., the database of reviews of effectiveness and the cochrane oral health group trials register). The quality of non-randomized prospective studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4 and Stata 17.0. Nine studies were included. The FGG group significantly outperformed the CM group in keratinized mucosa width (KMW), gain in KMW, and keratinized mucosa thickness, while exhibiting significantly lower probing depth (all P < 0.05). Negligible differences were observed in KMW shrinkage rate or gingival index (both P > 0.05). Certain indicators exhibited heterogeneity and potential publication bias, though sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the primary outcomes. FGG demonstrates superior efficacy in enhancing peri-implant soft tissue dimensions and improving peri-implant tissue health, whereas CM holds alternative value in minimally invasive applications and specific scenarios. Clinical selection should be based on comprehensive patient-specific considerations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41420763What 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.