ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2026
Prevalence, Risk Indicators, and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Labial Gingival Recession Following Orthodontic Treatment: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the prevalence, distribution, and risk indicators of gingival recession (GR) following orthodontic treatment (OT) in both private and hospital-based settings, and to evaluate its impact on patient satisfaction and willingness to seek corrective treatment. MATERIALS AND
methodsClinical and radiographic records from baseline to follow-up were retrospectively analyzed. Additionally, participants completed a survey on satisfaction, perception of GR if present, and willingness to seek corrective treatment. Incident and persistent GR were analyzed separately. Bayesian mixed-effects logistic regression with weakly informative priors was used to identify risk indicators for incident GR.
resultsA total of 103 patients (2030 teeth; mean age: 20.7 ± 9.7 years) were included. GR prevalence increased from 1.7% at baseline to 2.0% at appliance removal and continued to rise during the retention phase (3%-5%), with a site-specific distribution. Among 1996 teeth free of GR at baseline, 49 developed incident GR. A thin-scalloped gingival phenotype was the strongest risk indicator for incident GR (OR = 4.10; 95% CrI: 1.25-13.46). Most baseline GR persisted throughout follow-up. Satisfaction with OT remained high (mean score: 8.99 ± 1.04 on a 10-point scale) and was not significantly influenced by GR or treatment setting.
conclusionsGingival recession occurrence after orthodontic treatment is time- and site-dependent. A thin-scalloped gingival phenotype is the main risk indicator for incident GR, whereas pre-existing recession is highly persistent. Despite its occurrence, gingival recession had limited impact on patient satisfaction. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study provides long-term, multicenter data on gingival recession following orthodontic treatment, and is the first to assess its impact on patient perception. The findings may help inform risk-based treatment planning and individualized patient counseling in orthodontic care.
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.