Trial reportClinical oral investigations2026
The effects of cyanoacrylate and concentrated growth factor on wound healing and patient comfort at the palatal donor site: a randomized controlled clinical 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. 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
objectiveThis study evaluated the impact of cyanoacrylate and concentrated growth factor (CGF) on the postoperative morbidity of palatal donor sites following a free gingival graft (FGG).
methodsSixty patients were randomly assigned to three groups: a control group (hemostatic gelatine sponge), a cyanoacrylate group, and a CGF group. The groups were evaluated in terms of pain (visual analog scale (VAS)), epithelialization (full, partial or none), the number of analgesics (NA) consumed, the Healing Index (HI: 1 = very poor, 5 = excellent), color match (CM), and secondary bleeding (SB).
resultsThe CGF group showed lower the VAS pain scores compared to the control group in the first hour (p = 0.040). This difference between the groups was also supported in terms of clinical significance by the eta squared (η²) value of 11.4%. On day seven, the percentage of patients with none epithelialization in the control group (80%) was higher than the CGF (10%) and cyanoacrylate (20%) groups (p < 0.001). On day 14, the full epithelialization rate was also lower in the control group (50%) (p = 0.008). Over the first three days, NA consumed was lower in the CGF group compared to the control group (p < 0.05). On day seven, the HI score of the control group was lower than that of the CGF and cyanoacrylate groups (p = 0.020) with a clinical significance reflected by the η² value of 21.9%. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding CM and SB.
conclusionsThe CGF group was found to be statistically significant in terms of the first-hour pain, epithelialization on days seven and 14, and NA consumed during the first three days, compared to the control group. While the cyanoacrylate group was similar to the CGF group in terms of epithelialization (on days seven and 14) and HI (on day seven), it was similar to the control group in terms of other parameters. Further studies are needed to determine the clinical significance of these findings. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study provided an evaluation of the use of CGF and cyanoacrylate in the palatal donor sites following FGG. The results may be beneficial for any future studies evaluating for the clinical efficacy and their long-term clinical significance of these products.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42702656What 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.