Trial reportJournal of clinical periodontology2026
Palatal Donor-Site Healing and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Following Chitosan and Injectable Platelet-Rich Fibrin-Enriched Chitosan Application Compared with Gelatine Sponge: A Three-Arm Randomised Controlled Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Journal of clinical periodontology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of palatal donor-site healing following the use of an absorbable gelatine sponge, a chitosan sponge or an injectable platelet-rich fibrin (i-PRF)-enriched chitosan sponge after free gingival graft harvesting. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this three-arm randomised controlled clinical study, a total of 68 patients were allocated to three groups: i-PRF + chitosan (n = 22), chitosan (n = 23) and gelatine sponge (control; n = 23). The primary outcome was the palatal early healing index (PEHI). Secondary outcomes included PROMs, namely postoperative pain, burning sensation and changes in dietary habits, which were evaluated using a visual analogue scale (VAS) at postoperative days 7, 14, 28 and 56. Bleeding and painkiller consumption were recorded daily. Colour match was assessed using VAS.
resultsBoth chitosan-containing groups showed significantly higher PEHI scores, particularly on days 14 and 28, than the control group (p < 0.001). At Day 14, the median PEHI scores were 8.0 (Q1-Q3: 7.0-8.0; 95% CI for the median: 7.0-8.0), 8.0 (Q1-Q3: 8.0-9.0; 95% CI: 8.0-9.0) and 9.0 (Q1-Q3:8.0-9.0; 95% CI: 8.0-9.0) in the control, chitosan and i-PRF-enriched chitosan groups, respectively. The i-PRF + chitosan group showed significantly lower pain and burning sensation during early healing and less changes on dietary habits on days 3 and 7 compared with the other groups (p < 0.05). Bleeding and painkiller consumption were similar among groups (p > 0.05). Both test groups showed significantly better colour match than the control group at days 14, 28 and 56 (p < 0.001).
conclusionWithin the limitations of the present study, chitosan improved early palatal wound healing, while the addition of i-PRF enhanced patient comfort. Both chitosan-containing approaches resulted in improved colour match compared with control. Nevertheless, further studies incorporating histological and biomolecular assessments of wound healing are needed to confirm these findings.
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.