ArticleTrials2026
Single-blinded randomized non-inferiority controlled clinical trial comparing endoscope-assisted flapless approach versus papillary preservation technique in periodontal regeneration of intrabony periodontal defects: study protocol.
Article in Trials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06978036 (Single-blinded Randomized Non-inferiority Controlled Clinical Trial Comparing Endoscope-assisted Flapless Approach Versus Papillary Preservation Technique in Periodontal Regeneration of Intra-bony Periodontal Defects), which is not on this 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.
Single-blinded Randomized Non-inferiority Controlled Clinical Trial Comparing Endoscope-assisted Flapless Approach Versus Papillary Preservation Technique in Periodontal Regeneration of Intra-bony Periodontal Defects
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
backgroundPeriodontal intrabony defects pose significant challenges in periodontal therapy. Traditional surgical approaches often lead to substantial morbidity and high costs. Recently, endoscopic-assisted subgingival debridement (EASD) has emerged as a non-inferior alternative. This study aims to establish the efficacy of the endoscopic-assisted flapless approach to periodontal regeneration compared to periodontal regeneration with the papilla preservation technique (PPT) in managing residual periodontal intrabony defects.
methodsThis single-centre single-blinded randomized controlled clinical trial aims to recruit 56 participants with residual periodontal intrabony defects. Subjects will be randomly assigned to receive either EASD combined with enamel matrix derivatives (EMD) (test therapy) or PPT combined with EMD (control therapy) in a 1-to-1 ratio, delivered by the clinical investigator. Subjects will be followed up to 12 months post-operation, and an independent, blinded assessor will be responsible for collecting clinical, radiographic endpoints, and patient-reported outcomes measures. DISCUSSION: This study aims to produce information on the efficacy of periodontal regeneration with EMD in combination with EASD or PPT in the management of intrabony periodontal defects. The findings of this study will assess whether the endoscopic-assisted flapless approach is a non-inferior alternative to the PPT approach for periodontal regeneration, offering additional benefits in terms of patient morbidity and operative time.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT06978036.
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.