Trial reportClinical oral investigations2026
De-epithelialized gingival unit graft for gingival phenotype modification and root coverage: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05923294 (Clinical Comparison of Two Different Graft Harvesting Techniques Applied in Localized Gingival Recessions), 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 Comparison of Two Different Graft Harvesting Techniques Applied in Localized Gingival Recessions
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim was to compare the outcomes of gingival phenotype modification achieved using a de-epithelialized gingival unit graft (DUG) and a de-epithelialized gingival graft (DGG) in the treatment of single gingival recession defects with a coronally advanced flap (CAF). MATERIALS AND
methodsSubjects with bilateral RT1 gingival recession defects were recruited. The sites were randomly assigned to either the DUG or DGG group. The assessments were performed using clinical, linear, and volumetric digital measurements, as well as patient-reported outcome measures. Gingival thickness and mean root coverage were measured as the primary outcome variables.
resultsThe study was completed with 15 patients and 30 gingival recession defects. At the 6-month follow-up, the change in gingival thickness (DUG: 2.39 ± 0.65 mm; DGG: 1.66 ± 0.50 mm) and digital linear dimension (DUG: 1.66 ± 0.47 mm; DGG: 1.13 ± 0.36 mm) were significantly greater in the DUG group than in the DGG group (p = 0.001 and p = 0.008, respectively). Mean and complete root coverage values were greater in the DUG group, though not significant (95% vs. 75% and 93.3% vs. 66.7%, respectively). Graft thickness was significantly greater in the DUG group (p = 0.027; 1.55 ± 0.50 mm and 1.10 ± 0.32 mm, respectively). No significant intergroup differences were observed in postoperative pain perception or bleeding.
conclusionsDUG demonstrated better root coverage and phenotype modification results. However, the baseline imbalance in graft thickness remains a potential confounder, and the findings should be interpreted cautiously. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: DUG may offer an alternative tissue for phenotype modification and root coverage in cases with limited soft tissue thickness in the recipient area.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (identification number NCT05923294). https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05923294?cond=NCT05923294&rank=1 Date of Submission: June 20th, 2023.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42437817What 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.