Trial reportJournal of applied oral science : revista FOB2026
Clinical and aesthetic outcomes of enamel matrix derivative and subepithelial connective tissue graft using the modified coronally advanced tunnel technique: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06504329 (Clinical Outcomes of Enamel Matrix Derivative and Connective Tissue Graft in Modified Coronally Advanced Tunnel), 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.
Clinical Outcomes of Enamel Matrix Derivative and Connective Tissue Graft in Modified Coronally Advanced Tunnel: A Randomized Controlled Trial
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
objectivesThis randomized controlled clinical trial evaluated the short-term clinical outcomes of the modified coronally advanced tunnel technique combined with three different regenerative approaches-subepithelial connective tissue graft (as the gold standard), enamel matrix derivative (as a donor-site-sparing alternative), and their combination (to explore potential synergistic effects)-in treating recession type 1 gingival defects. METHODOLOGY: A total of 52 systemically healthy patients (aged 18-60) with 90 recession type 1 gingival defects were enrolled and randomly assigned to one of the three treatment groups: Group 1 (n=18; subepithelial connective tissue graft), Group 2 (n=19; enamel matrix derivative), and Group 3 (n=15; both materials). Primary outcome consisted of the percentage of root coverage at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included plaque index, gingival index, gingival recession depth, gingival recession width, clinical attachment level, keratinized tissue width, gingival thickness, wound healing index, probing depth, and root coverage aesthetic score. Clinical parameters were measured at baseline, 3, and 6 months, and aesthetic outcomes were assessed at 6 months.
resultsAll groups showed significant improvements in clinical parameters. Mean root coverage was 80.4% for Group 1, 76.2% for Group 2, and 73.6% for Group 3, with no significant differences among them. Keratinized tissue width significantly increased in Group 1 and Group 3, but not in Group 2. Mean root coverage aesthetic score values were 7.74 ± 2.35, 7.54 ± 2.39, and 7.62 ± 1.97, respectively (p > 0.05).
conclusionWithin the limitations of this study, including its short-term follow-up period and baseline differences in recession width, all three groups exhibited comparable clinical and aesthetic outcomes at 6 months. Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT06504329.
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.