ReviewJournal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry2026
Efficacy of different suturing techniques on gingival grafts: A scoping review.
Review in Journal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This review evaluated the efficacy of various suturing techniques in gingival graft stabilization to optimize clinical outcomes and minimize the need for revision surgeries. Methods: This scoping review was conducted across Scopus, PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and ProQuest (through April 2025) using PICO criteria: Population (gingival grafts around teeth), Intervention (different suturing techniques), Comparison (efficacy of various suturing techniques in gingival graft stabilization), and Outcomes (keratinized tissue width [KTW], keratinized tissue height [KTH], and root coverage [RC]). From 838 initial records, 73 studies met the inclusion criteria after dual-reviewer screening with arbitration by a third reviewer. Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tools. Results: For free gingival grafts (FGGs), primary stabilization methods included interrupted sutures (with/without periosteal fixation), sling sutures, and cyanoacrylate. Connective tissue grafts (CTGs) predominantly use sling sutures, often combined with cross-mattress or interrupted sutures, vertical/double-cross mattress techniques, or continuous sutures with coronally advanced/tunnel flaps. While 72% of FGG studies (23/32) reported significant KTW improvement with interrupted sutures (a mean gain of 2.1±0.8 mm), CTG studies demonstrated 96% RC success (43/45) with sling-based techniques. However, outcomes showed substantial heterogeneity due to variability in the Miller classification (33/67 studies focused on Class I only) and inconsistent reporting of suture material (only 5/67 specified size/type). Conclusion: No single suturing technique demonstrated clear superiority in graft stabilization, likely due to study heterogeneity. While sling/mattress combinations showed optimal RC for CTGs and interrupted sutures/cyanoacrylate performed well for FGGs, standardized RCTs controlling for confounding variables are required to establish definitive protocols.
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.