Skip to main content

Table 3 Summary of clinical trials using gingiva- derived cells

From: Promising advances in clinical trials of dental tissue-derived cell-based regenerative medicine

References

Registration ID

Condition

Study design

Patients (sites), test/control

Interventions

Follow-up

Outcomes

Risk of bias assessments

Test

Control

Pini Prato et al. [28]

NR

Gingival augmentation

A case report

1 (1)

GF + benzyl ester of hyaluronic acid (HYAFF®)

–

1 months, 2 months, 3 months

A fully keratinized tissue was regenerated.

–

Pini Prato et al. [29]

NR

Gingival augmentation

Case series

6 (7)

GF + benzyl ester of hyaluronic acid

–

1 month, 3 months

An increased amount of gingiva was obtained, and the histological examination revealed a fully keratinized tissue on all the treated sites.

–

Mohammadi et al. [30]

NR

Insufficient attached gingiva

SM-RCT

9 (18), 9/9

GF + bovine skin collagen type I

Periosteal fenestration technique

3 months

The difference between the width of keratinized gingiva in test and control sites was significant.

Some concerns

Murata et al. [31]

NR

Gingival recessions

Case series

4 (14)

GF + atelo-collagen + hyaluronic acid sponge

–

13 to 40 weeks

The average root coverage and keratinized and attached gingival tissue were increased.

–

Jhaveri et al. [32]

NR

Gingival recessions

SM-RCT

10 (20), 10/10

GF + acellular dermal matrix allograft

Subepithelial connective tissue graft

3 months, 6 months

There were no significant differences between test and control sites for all measured clinical parameters.

Low

Köseoğlu et al. [33]

NR

Gingival recessions

SM-RCT

11 (22), 11/11

GF + collagen membrane

Collagen membrane

3 months, 6 months, 12 months

A statistically significant increase was detected in PRC in the test group compared with the control group.

Some concerns

Milinkovic et al. [34]

NR

Gingival recessions

SM-RCT

18 (48), 24/24

GF + collagen matrix (BioGide®)

Connective tissue graft

12 months

There was no statistically significant difference among groups regarding change in gingival recession coverage, CAL, and RES.

Some concerns

  1. NR not reported, SM split-mouth, RCT randomized controlled trial, GF gingival fibroblasts, PRC percentage of root coverage, CAL clinical attachment level, RES root coverage esthetic score