Trial reportHead & face medicine2026
A short-term randomized controlled trial of bilaminar techniques using tunnel versus envelope flap for root coverage in multiple mandibular anterior gingival recessions with thin gingival phenotype.
Trial report in Head & face medicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare clinical, aesthetic, and patient-reported outcomes of tunnel technique (TUN) versus envelope flap technique (ENV), both combined with connective tissue graft (CTG), for the treatment of multiple mandibular anterior gingival recession defects in patients with thin gingival phenotype.
methodsFifty-nine patients contributing 103 recession sites in teeth 33-43 were enrolled. Randomisation was performed at the patient level, and all eligible sites within the same patient received the same intervention. Thirty-four patients (59 sites) received TUN + CTG and 25 patients (44 sites) received ENV + CTG. Clinical outcomes were analysed at the site level with patient-level clustering accounted for using mixed-effects models. Root coverage percentage (RC%), complete root coverage (CRC), keratinized tissue width (KTW), gingival thickness (GT), Root Esthetic Score (RES), and patient-reported outcomes were assessed at 3 and 6 months.
resultsAt 6 months, mean RC% in the TUN group (79.18 ± 31.49%) was significantly higher than in the ENV group (57.93 ± 37.24%; adjusted mean difference 19.8%, 95% CI 6.9-32.7; P = 0.003). CRC was achieved in 37/59 sites (62.7%) in TUN and 14/44 sites (31.8%) in ENV (adjusted OR 3.36, 95% CI 1.48-7.61; P = 0.004). Both groups showed significant gains in KTW and GT, while RES scores and patient satisfaction were consistently higher in the TUN group.
conclusionBoth techniques effectively improved recession defects and soft tissue phenotype in multiple mandibular anterior gingival recessions. The tunnel technique provided superior root coverage, aesthetic integration, and patient satisfaction over 6 months while maintaining a comparable operative time and favourable safety profile.
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.