A randomized clinical trial of cyanoacrylate tissue adhesives in donor site of connective tissue grafts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose was to compare patient-centered outcomes, early wound healing, and postoperative complications at palatal donor area of subepithelial connective tissue grafts (CTG) between cyanoacrylates tissue adhesives and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) sutures. METHODS: Thirty-six patients who required harvesting of CTG were enrolled in this randomized clinical trial and assigned to one of two groups. In the "suture" group, wound closure was achieved with standardized continuous interlocking 6-0 PTFE sutures, while in the "cyanoacrylate" group, a high viscosity blend of n-butyl and 2-octyl cyanoacrylate was applied until hemostasis was achieved. The primary outcome was the discomfort (eating, speaking, etc.) from the donor site during the first postoperative week; this was self-reported on a visual analog scale questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were the time required for suture placement or cyanoacrylate application, patient self-reported pain on the first day and the first week after surgery, the analgesic intake and the modified early-wound healing index (MEHI). RESULTS: The median value of discomfort was 1.49 in the "suture" group and 1.86 in the "cyanoacrylate" (P = 0.56). The mean time required for suture placement was 7.31 minutes and for cyanoacrylate application 2.16 minutes (P < 0.0001). No statistically significant differences were found between the two methods in reported pain level, analgesic intake, and MEHI. CONCLUSIONS: Cyanoacrylate performs similarly to sutures and can be used for wound closure of the donor site of CTG. The application was about 5 minutes faster than conventional suture placement, reducing the total time of the surgical procedure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".