Trial reportClinical oral investigations2026
Comparative evaluation of efficacy of xenogeneic pericardial membrane enriched with two different forms of platelet concentrates in the treatment of gingival recession- a randomized 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis randomized split-mouth study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of xenogeneic pericardial membrane (XCM) enriched with injectable platelet-rich fibrin (i-PRF) or advanced platelet-rich fibrin plus membrane (A-PRF+) in the treatment of isolated gingival recession defects. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty-three systemically healthy subjects presenting with 46 Cairo's RT1/RT2 gingival recession defects in maxilla were treated with coronally advanced flap (CAF) and XCM impregnated with i-PRF (group 1) or with CAF, XCM and A-PRF+ membrane combination (group 2). Clinical parameters were recorded at baseline, 3, and 6 months. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for data analysis.
resultsBoth groups showed significant reduction in recession depth from baseline to 3 and 6 months (p < 0.001). At 6 months, group 1 demonstrated 87.6 ± 20.16% mean root coverage (MRC) with 65.21% sites attaining complete root coverage (CRC) and group 2 showed a MRC of 96.74 ± 11.44% with 91.3% sites having CRC (p < 0.05). Intergroup comparison at 6 months revealed that group 2 sites had a significantly lower recession depth (0.09 ± 0.29 vs. 0.41 ± 0.66), greater gingival thickness (1.20 ± 0.2 vs. 0.98 ± 0.15), increased width of attached gingiva (2.0 ± 0.52 vs.1.5 ± 0.79), and higher mean root coverage esthetic scores (9.30 ± 0.8 vs. 8.34 ± 1.02) than group 1 (p < 0.05).
conclusionsThis preliminary short-term research suggests that the adjunctive use of A-PRF + to XCM resulted in more favorable root coverage outcomes than i-PRF-enriched XCM in the management of maxillary RT1 and RT2 recession defects. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: CAF, along with the XCM and A-PRF+ membrane combination, may be considered as a viable treatment option for enhancing root coverage outcomes and improving the gingival phenotype.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42809031What 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.