ReviewJournal of periodontology2026
Mucogingival surgery techniques: Coronally advanced flap versus tunnel approach.
Review in Journal of periodontology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical and Esthetic Outcomes of Vestibular Socket Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Verification Index for the Repositioning of a Single Implant Analog in the Correct Place: A Clinical Technical Case Report.Reports (MDPI) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMucogingival surgery techniques for treating gingival recessions (GRs) have evolved significantly over decades, reflecting advances in surgical understanding and patient demands. This narrative review tracesexamines the historical development of the coronally advanced flap-multiple coronally advanced flap (CAF/MCAF) and tunnel techniques, highlighting how these procedures have been refined to improve clinical outcomes and esthetic results. Emphasis is placed on the biological principles underlying these approaches and their adaptation based on growing scientific evidence.
methodsA comprehensive review of the literature was conducted, synthesizing historical milestones and recent clinical studies including randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews. The focus was on comparing the CAF and tunnel approaches in terms of surgical principles, technical variations, and effectiveness in root coverage treatment, considering adjunctive use of grafting materials.
resultsBoth the CAF/MCAF and tunnel techniques demonstrate high predictability and effectiveness in GR coverage. Their evolution reflects a trend toward minimally invasive surgery, improved vascularization, and tissue stability. Current evidence supports the choice of technique based on defect characteristics, tissue phenotype, and esthetic requirements, with connective tissue grafts (CTGs) and biomaterials enhancing outcomes in many cases.
conclusionsBoth CAF and tunnel techniques provide predictable root coverage, enhanced by CTGs (gold standard) or substitutes (reducing morbidity but with limited evidence). The choice between the two techniques should be guided by recession and tissue phenotype characteristics to optimize functional and esthetic outcomes. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: This study highlights the history and development of two key mucogingival surgical techniques, the coronally advanced flap and the tunnel technique, demonstrating that both provide reliable and effective options for treating gingival recessions, enabling successful root coverage outcomes.
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.