ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2026
Coronally advanced flap with platelet-rich fibrin or amniotic membrane for the treatment of gingival recession: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 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
objectivesPlatelet-rich fibrin (PRF) and Amniotic membrane (AM) have become viable substitute biomaterials to improve coronally advanced flap (CAF) outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of CAF + PRF versus CAF + AM in treating Miller's Class I/II gingival recession (GR).
methodsA comprehensive search of six electronic databases was carried out in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. percentage of root coverage (PRC), keratinized gingiva width (KGW), gain gingival thickness (GT), recession depth (RD) reduction, and recession width (RW) reduction were the primary outcomes. clinical attachment level (CAL), plaque index (PI), and probing depth (PD) were secondary outcomes. Random-effects models were used to pool mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals, and trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed to examine evidence sufficiency and required information size (RIS).
resultsThe qualitative and quantitative synthesis comprised six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from 2017 to 2025. At 3- and 6-month follow-ups, a meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences between CAF + PRF and CAF + AM for PRC, CAL, RD, RW, PD, or PI. At three months, there was a statistically significant difference in KGW gain favoring AM (MD = -0.16 mm, 95% CI: -0.27 to -0.06, p = 0.0028). TSA for KGW at 3 months showed that the accumulated evidence has reached the RIS and crossed the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit.
conclusionWithin the limitations of a small number of short-term randomized trials, outcome-level risk-of-bias concerns, and potential unit-of-analysis issues, current evidence suggests that CAF combined with PRF or AM yields comparable clinical outcomes for the treatment of gingival recession. Although a statistically significant advantage in KGW was observed for AM at 3 months, this difference is unlikely to be clinically meaningful and was not sustained over time.
Identifiers
42844319What 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.