MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414757385 · doi:10.2196/67168

Comparative Effectiveness of Titanium Platelet-Rich Fibrin and Connective Tissue Graft Harvested from the Tuberosity Area Via Modified Vestibular Incision Supraperiosteal Tunnel Access for Managing Gingival Recession: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

2025· article· en· W4414757385 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sanehi Punse, Prasad Dhadse

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialConnective tissueProtocol (science)FibrinClinical trialTitanium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Periodontal surgery has traditionally relied on connective tissue grafts (CTGs) obtained from the tuberosity site to correct gingival recession abnormalities. However, there are challenges to be addressed, including insufficient graft quantity and patient susceptibility. Consequently, titanium-prepared platelet-rich fibrin, or T-PRF, has emerged as a competitive alternative. By combining T-PRF with the modified vestibular incision supraperiosteal tunnel access (M-VISTA) approach, a more conservative way is provided, which may improve the course of treatment. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of T-PRF and CTGs from the tuberosity area in managing gingival recession defects using the M-VISTA technique. The study aims to evaluate improvements in clinical outcomes, including pocket probing depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL), relative gingival margin level (RGML), recession depth (RD), and width of keratinized gingiva (WKG), as well as plaque and bleeding indices. METHODS: The proposed methodology entails conducting a randomized clinical trial over 2 years with 24 participants, each presenting with multiple gingival recessions (>2 mm, Miller's Class I or II) on the buccal or labial aspects of teeth in the maxilla or mandible. Participants will be randomly allocated into 2 groups: the test group and the control group. The M-VISTA technique will be used for root coverage using T-PRF in the test group and tuberosity CTG in the control group as regenerative materials. Their effectiveness will be compared by evaluating PPD, CAL, RGML, RD, and WKG. Additionally, the plaque index will be calculated by dividing the total plaque index score of all teeth by the number of teeth examined, and the papillary bleeding index will be assessed using a periodontal probe with scores evaluated on a scale of 0-4 based on bleeding potential. Data will be analyzed using Student paired and unpaired t tests to compare results from baseline to 3 and 6 months for each group. RESULTS: Recruitment, participant selection, baseline data collection, and randomization of groups concluded in September 2024, and the intervention phase is scheduled to end in December 2025. The study is expected to be completed by July 2026, with final evaluation, data analysis, and publication preparation taking place between June and July 2026. CONCLUSIONS: Based on existing evidence, we anticipate that the M-VISTA technique with T-PRF will provide superior root coverage compared to tuberosity CTG because no second surgical site is involved. Evidence suggests that T-PRF may offer comparable clinical benefits to CTG, particularly in clinical attachment gain, RD reduction, and gingival thickness, supporting the advancement of minimally invasive periodontal plastic surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Registry of India CTRI/2024/07/071619; https://tinyurl.com/ypfe34b5. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/67168.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.186
GPT teacher head0.543
Teacher spread0.357 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicPeriodontal Regeneration and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207