ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026
Subepithelial Connective Tissue Grafting Around Dental Implants: From Established Soft-Tissue Benefits to Uncertain Marginal Bone Effects.
Review in Journal of clinical 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Subepithelial connective tissue grafting (SCTG) is widely used to increase peri-implant mucosal thickness and buccal soft-tissue volume, but its relevance to marginal bone stability remains uncertain. This narrative review examines whether SCTG provides clinically meaningful effects beyond soft-tissue phenotype modification, with particular emphasis on marginal bone level (MBL). Evidence was synthesized by separating direct intervention studies of SCTG or peri-implant soft-tissue augmentation from indirect studies relating baseline phenotype dimensions to subsequent tissue behavior. Randomized and comparative studies consistently show increases in mucosal thickness and soft-tissue volume and, in selected indications, improved contour and mucosal-margin stability. By contrast, MBL findings are heterogeneous. Greater mucosal thickness or supracrestal tissue height has been associated with less crestal remodeling, particularly during early healing; however, these prognostic associations do not establish that surgical thickening with SCTG reproduces a bone-preserving effect. Long-term trials further show that improved mucosal-margin stability can coexist with little or no clear between-group difference in MBL. Current evidence therefore supports SCTG primarily as a phenotype-modification and reconstructive procedure. A direct, independent, durable SCTG-mediated effect on marginal bone preservation remains biologically plausible but unproven; the evidence identified in this review does not support routine SCTG solely as prophylaxis for MBL preservation.
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.