ReviewFrontiers in dental medicine2026
Effectiveness of hyaluronic acid vs. surgical and non-surgical methods for Papilla Reconstruction: a systematic review.
Review in Frontiers in dental medicine, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Interdental papilla loss produces unaesthetic "black triangles" that impair function and patient satisfaction. While surgical and non-surgical techniques exist, hyaluronic acid (HA) injections have emerged as a minimally invasive option, but their comparative effectiveness and certainty of evidence remain unclear. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of injectable HA for interdental papilla reconstruction. Materials and methods: MEDLINE/PubMed and EMBASE were searched from inception through May 2025 for peer-reviewed randomized and non-randomized trials, cohort studies, or split-mouth designs in adults aged 18 years or older. Eligible studies compared injectable HA to surgical (e.g., connective tissue grafts) or non-surgical approaches (e.g., platelet-rich fibrin, saline placebo). The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane RoB 2.0 and the ROBINS-I tool. Where appropriate, meta-analyses were performed, and heterogeneity was evaluated using the Results: Three trials ( Discussion: Hyaluronic acid offers short-term esthetic improvements over placebo, but evidence certainty is low to moderate, and no clear superiority over other regenerative approaches was demonstrated. Substantial heterogeneity and limited methodological robustness limit the confidence in quantitative conclusions. Conclusions: Injectable HA may improve interdental papilla esthetics in the short term compared with placebo; however, its clinical advantage over other regenerative materials remains uncertain. Given the high heterogeneity, small sample sizes, and risk of bias, larger, well-designed randomized trials with standardized protocols and longer follow-up are required before firm clinical recommendations can be made. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251051629, identifier CRD420251051629.
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.