ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2026
Hyaluronic acid versus microneedling with injectable platelet-rich fibrin in the treatment of partial loss of interdental papillae: A pilot randomized clinical trial.
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Loss of the interdental papilla represents a frequent aesthetic and functional challenge in dentistry. Traditional surgical procedures can partially restore papillary form but are limited by technical sensitivity, donor-site morbidity, and unpredictable long-term results. Consequently, interest has shifted toward minimally invasive, biologically driven strategies for papilla reconstruction. Among non-surgical options, the injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) and the injectable form of platelet-rich fibrin (iPRF) have shown considerable promise. Combining microneedling (MN) enhances trans-mucosal delivery of the biologic agent and can boost regenerative outcomes. Despite promising results, direct comparisons between HA and MN + iPRF remain scarce. Therefore, the present study aims to compare the clinical outcomes of MN + iPRF versus HA gel injection in the reconstruction of Class I interdental papilla loss. This pilot study was conducted as a split-mouth, double-blind, randomized trial to compare the efficacy of MN + iPRF vs. HA injections in reconstructing interdental papillae. A total of seven adult patients (N = 7) were enrolled, contributing 20 interdental papillary sites based on individual clinical presentation. Each site was randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups: Group MN + iPRF (n = 10 sites), and Group HA (n = 10 sites). Clinical parameters measured at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks included papillary height and papillary width at three levels (base, middle, and tip), and Papillary thickness. Both techniques showed comparable improvements in papillae height and contour over the study period. Intergroup analysis showed no statistically significant difference in all parameters at any time point. This pilot study, with its small sample size, suggests comparable short-term outcomes, but larger studies are needed to determine definitive efficacy. The absence of statistical significance should therefore be interpreted cautiously and does not indicate equivalence between the two treatment approaches.
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.