Trial reportScientific reports2026
Allogeneic acellular dermal matrix versus connective tissue graft for multiple RT2 gingival recessions: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is an alternative to autologous tissue grafts that are commonly utilized in soft tissue augmentation procedures. This randomized clinical trial evaluated the clinical effectiveness of allogeneic ADM versus connective tissue graft (CTG) in treating multiple recession type (RT) 2 gingival recessions using a modified tunnel technique. A total of 40 patients were randomly assigned to either the CTG group (n=20) or the ADM group (n=20). Clinical parameters, including the plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), keratinized tissue width (KTW), recession depth (RD), and gingival thickness (GT), were assessed at baseline and 12 months. Both groups showed significant improvements in CAL, KTW, RD, and GT at 12 months compared to baseline. No significant differences in PI, GI, PD, mean root coverage (MRC), complete root coverage (CRC) or the Root Coverage Esthetic Score (RES) were observed between the CTG and ADM groups. The CTG group demonstrated greater gains in GT and KTW (p<0.05), whereas the ADM group reported significantly lower postoperative pain (p<0.05). ADM and CTG yielded comparable root coverage and aesthetics. CTG provided superior tissue augmentation, whereas ADM offered better patient comfort. In conclusion, allogeneic ADM is a promising alternative for the treatment of RT2 gingival recessions.
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.