Background The aim of this study was to evaluate the midpalatal suture maturation stages in adolescents and young adults using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Methods The sample comprised 200 CBCT scans of individuals aged 10 to 25 years old (95 males and 105 females) divided into three groups, adolescents (n = 48), post-adolescents (n = 52), and young adults (n = 100). The Planmeca ProMax 3D software was used for the midpalatal suture maturation stage evaluation according to Angieleri’s method, using cross-sectional axial slice. Two previously calibrated examiners analyzed the images and classified according to five different maturation stages. A, B, and C stages were considered with open midpalatal suture, and D and E were considered without open midpalatal suture. Association tests were performed using chi-square test also, and a binary logistic regression was evaluated (P < 0.05). Results The possibility to find open midpalatal suture in individuals of 10 to 15 years old was 70.8%, in subject aged 16 to 20 and 21 to 25 years old was 21.2% and 17%, respectively. Furthermore, this possibility in individuals older than 16 years was greater in males than in females. Conclusions The possibility to find open midpalatal suture in post-adolescents and young adults is greater than the orthodontists considered years ago. Furthermore, men are more likely to find midpalatal suture opening. These implications might be considered by the orthodontists when maxillary expansion is required. Besides, the ossification of the middle palatal suture is very variable, and therefore, the use of CBCT might be recommended to clarify this possibility.

Objective To review the historical and current periodontal phenotype classifications evaluating methods and characteristics. Moreover, to identify and classify the methods based on periodontal phenotype components. Overview Several gingival morphology studies have been frequently associated with different terms used causing confusion among the readers. In 2017, the World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri‐Implant Diseases and Conditions recommended to adopt the term “periodontal phenotype”. This term comprises two terms, gingival phenotype (gingival thickness and keratinized tissue width) and bone morphotype (buccal bone plate thickness). Furthermore, gingival morphology has been categorized on “thin‐scalloped”, “thick‐scalloped” and “thick‐flat” considering the periodontal biotype. However, by definition, the term phenotype is preferred over biotype. Periodontal phenotype can be evaluated through clinical or radiographic assessments and may be divided into invasive/non‐invasive (for gingival thickness), static/functional (for keratinized tissue width), and bi/tridimensional (for buccal bone plate thickness) methods. Conclusions “Thin‐scalloped,” “thick‐scalloped,” and “thick‐flat” periodontal biotypes were identified. These three periodontal biotypes have been considered in the World Workshop but the term periodontal phenotype is recommended. Periodontal phenotype is the combination of the gingival phenotype and the bone morphotype. There are specific methods for periodontal phenotype evaluation. Clinical significance The term periodontal phenotype is currently recommended for future investigations about gingival phenotype and bone morphotype. “Thin‐scalloped,” “thick‐scalloped,” and “thick‐flat” periodontal phenotypes can be evaluated through specific methods for gingival thickness, keratinized tissue width, and buccal bone plate thickness evaluation.

No abstract

No abstract