ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2025
Comparative Evaluation of Hyaluronic Acid Gel Versus PRF in Gingival Recession Coverage: A Split-Mouth Study.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Gingival recession (GR) is a prevalent periodontal circumstance that may lead to esthetic issues and hypersensitivity of the dentin. New biomaterials, like hyaluronic acid (HA) gel and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), were developed recently, and they expand the range of opportunities offered by the root coverage procedure. Methods: Twenty patients (aged 25 to 45 years) with bilateral Miller Class 1/2 recession in the maxillary or mandibular anterior segment were chosen. The study used a split-mouth study design with the left side treated as the test group by using coronally advanced flap (CAF) together with HA gel, and the right side as the control group by using CAF with PRF. Baseline clinical parameters were taken before surgery and six months after surgery as recession depth (RD), clinical attachment level (CAL), and width of keratinized tissue (WKT). Results: There was an average RD decrease of 2.4+/- 0.6 mm in the HA and 2.3+/- 0.5 mm in the PRF group ( Conclusion: HA gel and PRF were similarly effective clinically in covering gingival recession, which implies that HA gel could be an adequate substitute of PRF in the treatment of mucogingival procedures.
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.