ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2026
Baseline factors associated with complete root coverage at 6 months after matrix-assisted treatment of multiple gingival recessions: a post Hoc exploratory analysis of randomized trial data.
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Complete root coverage (CRC) after treatment of multiple gingival recession defects may vary among treated sites, even when the same surgical protocol is used. This post hoc exploratory secondary analysis of randomized trial data aimed to evaluate baseline clinical factors associated with complete root coverage at 6 months after modified coronally advanced flap (MCAF) plus volume-stable collagen matrix (VCMX), with or without injectable platelet-rich fibrin (i-PRF). Patients with multiple gingival recession defects were treated with MCAF plus VCMX, with or without i-PRF. CRC was analyzed at the site level at 6 months. Because multiple treated sites were nested within patients, logistic generalized estimating equations with patient-level clustering were used. Univariable clustered models were followed by a parsimonious adjusted model including intervention group, baseline gingival recession depth, baseline gingival thickness, and age. Baseline probing pocket depth was evaluated in an additional exploratory adjusted model. The analysis included 79 recession sites from 24 patients, with 37 sites treated using MCAF + VCMX and 42 using MCAF + VCMX + i-PRF. Complete root coverage was achieved in 20 sites overall, including 7 sites in the MCAF + VCMX group and 13 in the MCAF + VCMX + i-PRF group. In the univariable clustered analysis, greater baseline gingival recession depth was associated with lower odds of complete root coverage, whereas baseline probing pocket depth was positively associated. In the adjusted model, baseline gingival recession depth remained associated with lower odds of CRC (adjusted OR 0.269, 95% CI 0.099-0.730; p = 0.010), while the association with baseline probing pocket depth became borderline and imprecise. Greater baseline gingival recession depth was associated with lower odds of complete root coverage at 6 months. Because only 20 CRC events were observed, the adjusted GEE estimates were imprecise and should be interpreted as exploratory. The findings should not be considered predictive or as evidence of superiority of either treatment protocol.
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.