ArticleCureus2026
Comparison of Coronally Advanced Flap and Semilunar Coronally Repositioned Flap for Root Coverage of Gingival Recession in Maxillary Anterior Teeth: A Clinical Comparative Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
Introduction Gingival recession is a common mucogingival condition that may result in dentinal hypersensitivity, root caries, cervical abrasion, and compromised aesthetics, particularly in the maxillary anterior region. Various root coverage procedures have been proposed for the management of gingival recession defects. Among the available treatment options, the coronally advanced flap (CAF) and semilunar coronally repositioned flap (SCRF) are relatively simple techniques for the treatment of isolated shallow recession defects. Aim This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of CAF and SCRF in the treatment of Miller's class I gingival recession defects in maxillary anterior teeth. Materials and methods Twenty patients presenting with isolated Miller's class I gingival recession defects in maxillary anterior teeth were enrolled in this randomized, single-blind controlled clinical study. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups (n = 10 each). Group A received treatment with CAF, whereas Group B was treated using the SCRF technique. Clinical parameters including recession height (RH), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), and width of keratinized gingiva (WKG) were recorded at baseline, at three months, and at six months postoperatively. Additionally, the percentage of root coverage was calculated at six months. Results Both treatment modalities resulted in improvement of clinical parameters. Notably, SCRF was found to be a simple, rapid, and sutureless procedure with favorable gain in the WKG. However, CAF demonstrated superior clinical outcomes with respect to percentage of root coverage, frequency of complete root coverage, and gain in CAL at six months. Conclusion Both CAF and SCRF were effective in the management of Miller's class I gingival recession defects. However, CAF achieved superior root coverage and attachment gain compared with SCRF, suggesting that CAF remains the preferred treatment modality for predictable root coverage in isolated maxillary anterior recession defects.
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.