Gingival thickness threshold and probe visibility through soft tissue: a cross-sectional study

Abstract

Objectives The aim was to retrieve the threshold of gingival thickness (GT), where the attribute of gingival translucency through probe visibility was altered. Methods In 200 patients, the soft tissue thickness was evaluated at both central mandibular incisors using ultrasound quantification (USD). Additionally, probe visibility was determined using a standard periodontal probe (PB) (CPU 15 UNC, Hu-Friedy), inserted 1 mm deep into the gingival sulcus. Frequencies and relative frequencies were calculated. Repeatability analyses and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) were conducted to determine the USD cut-off point for probe visibility. Results Regression model indicated that the probe was not visible at a thickness of 0.82 mm for the mandibular left central incisor (95% CIs 0.77, 0.86) and became visible at a thickness of 0.69 mm (95% CIs 0.65, 0.72). The respective values for the mandibular right central incisor were 0.82 mm (95% CIs 0.77, 0.87) and 0.70 mm (0.68, 0.74). ROC analysis confirmed the retrieved regression results by indicating the best fitting balance for specificity and sensitivity at a thickness of 0.8 mm for both mandibular incisors. Conclusions In the frame of the current study, the data revealed that gingiva becomes non-transparent at a thickness of approximately 0.8 mm. Clinical relevance Probe visibility at mandibular incisors for the discrimination between thin and thick soft tissues was correlated with a gingival thickness of 0.8 mm and a high repeatability.

Correlation between periodontal phenotype and sinus membrane thickness: A systematic review

“…The high methodological heterogeneity could be attributed to two factors: differences in the populations evaluated and in the method of measuring gingival thickness (probe transparency method, and different CBCT and CT devices) and SMT (histology, and different CBCT and CT devices). First, the cut‐off point between the thin and thick PP was not the most appropriate; it has been shown that the gingiva becomes non‐transparent at a thickness of 0.8 mm (Frost et al, 2015; Kloukos et al, 2022). In parallel, the transparency of the probe has been shown to not be a reliable indicator of gingival thickness when compared with the ultrasonic method for determining gingival thickness (Kim et al, 2021).…”

Assessment of gingival translucency at the mandibular incisors with two different probing systems. A cross sectional study

“…Of course, compared to transgingival probing with a probe /acupuncture needle or an USD, probe visibility assessment is not an objective tool since a direct numeric measurement cannot be retrieved. Nevertheless, translucency judgement of the gingiva with a standard periodontal probe for the discrimination between thin and thick gingival phenotype showed a high repeatability and a cut-off level at 0.8 mm [ 19 ].…”

Non‐invasive assessment of peri‐implant mucosal thickness: A cross‐sectional study

“…8,9 These methods include the visual inspection of soft tissue features, 10 probe translucency through the mucosa lateral to the sulcus, [11][12][13] the use of a caliper after tooth extraction or flap reflection, 13 cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) [14][15][16] with or without the superimposition of stereolithography (STL) files, [17][18][19] non-ionizing ultrasound (US), ultrasonography, 20,21 and transmucosal horizontal probing. 22 Although clinical outcome measures are still more frequently reported, there is a trend in the field indicating a shift from traditional clinical assessment methods to the use of advanced imaging based on digital technologies. 23 The use of CBCT with or without the superimposition of an STL file has been widely applied in recent years in both research and clinical practice to evaluate the periodontal phenotype, 14,17,[24][25][26][27] with results that are comparable with direct clinical and histologic assessments.…”

“…Different methods have been described to quantify and classify the soft tissue thickness around teeth and implants 8,9 . These methods include the visual inspection of soft tissue features, 10 probe translucency through the mucosa lateral to the sulcus, 11–13 the use of a caliper after tooth extraction or flap reflection, 13 cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) 14–16 with or without the superimposition of stereolithography (STL) files, 17–19 non‐ionizing ultrasound (US), ultrasonography, 20,21 and transmucosal horizontal probing 22 . Although clinical outcome measures are still more frequently reported, there is a trend in the field indicating a shift from traditional clinical assessment methods to the use of advanced imaging based on digital technologies 23 …”