ReviewCureus2026
Comparative Clinical Outcomes of Electrosurgery Versus Other Techniques for Gingival Depigmentation: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gingival hyperpigmentation is a common esthetic concern, and several depigmentation techniques have been described. Electrosurgery is widely used because of its affordability and good intraoperative hemostasis, but its comparative clinical performance remains unclear. The present systematic review aimed to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of electrosurgery for gingival depigmentation in comparison with other treatment modalities. A systematic review of comparative clinical studies was performed in PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, and EBSCOhost from inception to February 2026. Human comparative studies evaluating electrosurgery against other depigmentation techniques and reporting at least one quantitative clinical outcome were included. Data on depigmentation, postoperative pain, healing, complications, and repigmentation were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB-2) tool and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. The certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Eight comparative studies were included, comprising seven randomized trials and one non-randomized study. Most studies were conducted in India and mainly involved young adults with physiologic gingival pigmentation. Electrosurgery consistently produced satisfactory short-term depigmentation. However, comparisons with diode lasers generally favored lasers for early postoperative pain and healing. Findings versus the scalpel were more balanced, with electrosurgery offering better hemostasis but no clear overall superiority in patient-centered outcomes. Repigmentation was variably reported and showed inconsistent long-term stability. The certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to very low, mainly because of risk of bias, imprecision, and heterogeneity. Electrosurgery is an effective and accessible option for gingival depigmentation, particularly for short-term pigment reduction. However, its postoperative comfort, healing profile, and long-term stability appear less consistent than its immediate clinical effectiveness.
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.