An Exploratory Study on Assessment of Gingival Biotype and Crown Dimensions as Predictors for Implant Esthetics Comparing Caucasian and Indian Subjects

Abstract

Gingival biotype and crown dimensions may be important predictors for the esthetic outcome of surgical procedures. However, the visual distinction between "thick" and "thin" biotype may not be a suitable predictive parameter of surgical outcome. Intraoral photographs of 73 Indian and Dutch subjects were matched with respect to age and gender and were used to determine the gingival biotype (subjective assessment) and crown dimensions (objective assessment). Intraobserver and interobserver agreement was determined for subjective measurements (Cohen's kappa), and the error of the method was calculated for the objective measurements (Dahlberg formula). Intraobserver agreement for the subjective assessment of gingival biotype was adequate (κ = 0.49-0.60), but interobserver agreement was poor (κ = 0.10), whereas the error of the method for objective assessment of crown dimensions was small. The mean crown width-length angle is smaller in Dutch as compared to Indian subjects in this sample (P < .05). Crown dimensions may be a more quantitative approach and could become a future norm to predict outcomes of implant restorative and surgical procedures, bearing in mind that cross-cultural differences may be present.

The significance of surgically modifying soft tissue phenotype around fixed dental prostheses: An American Academy of Periodontology best evidence review

“…After screening titles and abstracts, 32 articles were selected for full‐text evaluation. Twenty‐six articles were further excluded from the qualitative and quantitative analyses; the reasons for exclusion are listed in Table . After full‐text review, no literature regarding tooth‐supported prostheses was identified.…”

“…Aguirre-Zorzano et al 2013 25 Ahmed et al 2018 26 Akcali et al 2017 27 An et al 2009 28 Bhat et al 2015 31 Cosyn et al 2011 34 Cosyn et al 2013 33 Kan et al 2003 38 Kan et al 2011 37 Kim et al 2016 39 Nisapakultorn et al 2010 40 Paniz et al 2016 41 Patil et al 2013 42 Ross et al 2014 43 Spinato et al 2012 46 Studer et al 2000 47 Tao et al 2014 48 Yilmaz and Tözüm 2012 49 No control group Anderson et al 2014 29 Batista et al 2001 30 De Bruyckere et al 2015 35 Hutton et al 2018 9 Schneider et al 2011 44 Speroni et al 2010 45 Inadequate data to be analyzed Bianchi and Sanfilippo 2004 32 Jyothi et al 2013 36 favoring the SCTG group. There was a low (I 2 = 31%) heterogeneity among compared studies.…”

Early loading of splinted implants in the posterior mandible: a prospective multicentre case series

“…Thirdly, since this study was conducted only in a Chinese population,the generalizability of this study could be questioned. Although there is no direct evidence indicating that the implant clinical performance will differ among ethnic groups, the diversity of dental arch anatomy (Kook et al 2004, Patil et al 2013, bone density (Morton et al 2003, Conradie et al 2014, masticatory force (Shinogaya et al 2001) and dietary pattern (Wahlqvist 2005) has been reported to be existing among different ethnic groups. Therefore, the potential difference of implant clinical performance among ethnic groups may exist.…”

Soft-tissue grafting for peri-implantitis—a treatment option in case of unsuitable skeletal basic morphology of the alveolar bone and lack of keratinized mucosa: a retrospective clinical cohort study

“…Therefore, it is recommended to conduct such investigation with a control group of patients with thick biotype in order to be able to answer this question. It is also recommended to investigate other approaches in larger cohort constitutional variations with different phenotypic forms of intra-oral soft and hard tissues of different ethnic groups similar to the study by Patil et al [31]. …”