On the relationship between gingival biotypes and gingival thickness in young Caucasians

Abstract

Our data support the traditional hypothesis that two different gingival biotypes with concomitant properties distinguishable by gingival transparency exist. In addition, we provide evidence that an alternative classification into "very thick", "moderate" and "very thin" biotypes might be advantageous, because the unique properties were seemingly primarily driven by subjects with extreme values.

Horizontal stability of connective tissue grafts at the buccal aspect of single implants: a 1‐year prospective case series

“…This is in accordance with the results of Fischer et al. () describing a mean difference of 0.34 mm between both biotypes. These findings support the hypothesis that GT can be assessed on the basis of gingival transparency.…”

“…() and Fischer et al. () proposed the transparency of a probe as an appropriate method for the assessment of the gingival biotype, yet Fu et al. () reported it as a non‐valid method.…”

The gingival biotype in a cohort of Chinese subjects with and without history of periodontal disease

“…It was found that the mean gingival thickness of the 30 subjects with a healthy periodontal condition was 1.05±0.31 mm with a range of 0.47‐1.57 mm, and no difference occurred between the central incisors and lateral incisors. These results are comparable with those from other relevant studies conducted by various methods in different ethnic groups . According to current knowledge, the so‐called “thin” and “thick” gingival biotype concept is challenging to distinguish through a clear line.…”

“…It has been suggested that various factors such as age, gender, crown shape and crown position may be related to gingival biotype. Notably, gingival biotype varies among different ethnic groups . To the best of our best knowledge, there are no published data sets on the gingival biotype of Chinese population.…”

Reproducibility of the PIROP ultrasonic biometer for gingival thickness measurements

“…Great discrepancy was found in the prevalence of gingival biotypes depending on whether the TRAN method was used, or the thickness was measured with a GT method, applying an objective threshold of 1 mm. A classification system comprising more than two groups might be helpful for correct risk assessment, for example, in the case of implant treatment in esthetically demanding cases . However, instead of making several subcategories, it may be more logical to use a method, which provides a continuous quantitative reading of GT.…”