SynthesisJournal of periodontology2026
Autogenous grafts versus substitute scaffolds for soft tissue augmentation in implant therapy: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of periodontology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- New technologies in oral reconstructive medicine: Consensus report of the AAP/OF/SEPA Workshop.Journal of periodontology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo analyze the effect of autogenous soft tissue grafts or substitute scaffolds on the outcomes of soft tissue augmentation (STA) performed in the context of implant therapy.
methodsThe protocol of this PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024611477). Articles reporting the findings of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that met the eligibility criteria were identified through a literature search. Following final article selection, data were extracted, including relevant clinician- and patient-reported outcomes and experiences (CROs and PROs/PREs). Risk of bias assessment was performed using the RoB2 tool. Network meta-analyses (NMA) were performed when feasible to compare the performance of different techniques.
resultsForty RCTs were selected. Risk of bias assessment revealed that the methodological quality of the selected studies was generally high. Although CROs and PROs/PREs were inconsistently reported, it was possible to conduct five sets of NMA regarding mucosal thickness (MT) and keratinized mucosa width (KMW) changes. These analyses revealed that the use of an autogenous connective tissue graft in a bilaminar approach is the best treatment for MT augmentation regardless of the timing, while the application of a free mucosal graft over a partial-thickness vascular bed is generally the best to obtain KMW gains. Alternatively, other treatment options involving the use of specific types of substitute scaffolds were considered as viable alternatives given their similar performance, particularly in terms of MT gain. Additionally, it was found that, compared with autogenous soft tissue grafts, the use of substitute scaffolds is consistently associated with lower postoperative discomfort.
conclusionsAutogenous soft tissue grafts should be considered as the primary choice to achieve predictable MT and KMW gains in the context of implant therapy. The use of specific substitute scaffolds may render similar STA outcomes with lower postoperative morbidity.
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.