Correlation between Gingival Phenotype, Residual Ridge Height and the Schneiderian Membrane

Abstract

Purpose: Sinus perforations are one of the most common complications during sinus augmentation procedures. Preoperative prediction of the antral membrane thickness would be of practical importance and serves as an additional information for surgical planning. The purpose of this study was to analyze a possible correlation and comparison between gingival phenotype and the residual ridge height on the dentulous and the edentulous side to the thickness of the healthy sinus mucosa.Materials and methods: Twenty-five consecutive patients were included in the study; preoperative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scanning was performed to radiographically evaluate the gingival phenotype (GP), the height of the residual ridge (RRH) at the edentulous side and the dentulous side and thickness of the schneiderian membrane (SMT). The smallest RRH, highest SM and gingival thickness values were recorded. These values were classified as follows: RRH < or >3.5 mm; SM < or >1 mm; and GP <1.5 or >2 mm.

Three-Dimensional Calculation of Sinus Augmentation Volume after Maxillary Sinus Floor Elevation

“…36 37 Some authors reported that healthy Schneiderian membranes are thicker in individuals with a thick gingival biotype than in those with a thin gingival biotype. 11,38 However, our results showed no correlation between the membrane thickness and crestal gingival thickness.…”

Non‐Invasive Periodontal Probing Through Fourier‐Domain Optical Coherence Tomography

“…As an additional and important result, the present authors were able to measure the gingival thickness, which is one of the predictors of the gingival phenotype. Its variation has direct implications on the results of periodontal therapy, root coverage procedures, implant placement, and surgeries for maxillary sinus elevation owing to the strong correlation between the gingival phenotype and the Schneiderian mucosa thickness 34,35 . Several methods have been used, both invasive and non‐invasive, to evaluate gingival thickness, such as histologic sections, injection needles, transgingival probing, cephalometric radiographs, probe transparency, ultrasonic devices, and cone beam computed tomography 36 .…”

“…Its variation has direct implications on the results of periodontal therapy, root coverage procedures, implant placement, and surgeries for maxillary sinus elevation owing to the strong correlation between the gingival phenotype and the Schneiderian mucosa thickness. 34,35 Several methods have been used, both invasive and non-invasive, to evaluate gingival thickness, such as histologic sections, injection needles, transgingival probing, cephalometric radiographs, probe transparency, ultrasonic devices, and cone beam computed tomography. 36 Another way is visual evaluation, but that cannot be considered a reliable method to determine the degree of gingival thickness because of its qualitative nature.…”

“…In addition, the efficiency for identifying subgingival calculus is evaluated. Quantitative measurements of the gingival sulcus are obtained, as well as the thickness of the free gingiva, which is one of the predictors of gingival phenotype 34‐36 . Stereomicroscope images, the gold standard, are used for direct comparison.…”

Morphoradiological Evaluation of Maxillary Alveolar Bone in Dental Implant Patients. Summary of the Doctoral Thesis

“…The study group showed statistically significant correlation between bone height and width, which means, the higher is the alveolar bone, the wider the bone is. It is found that in cases of lower residual bone, perforation of the Schneider membrane is observed more often (Deepthi, 2012), which is explainable by thinner bone and smaller cavities. In our study, no such links were found.…”