Periodontal Biotype: Gingival Thickness as It Relates to Probe Visibility and Buccal Plate Thickness

Frost, Natalie A.; Mealey, Brian L.; Jones, Archie A.; Huynh‐Ba, Guy

doi:10.1902/jop.2015.140394

Cited by 95 publications

(116 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(71 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…When the probe was visible, mean gingival thickness was 0.17mm less compared to the "thick" counterparts. When the probe was visible, mean buccal plate thickness was tended to be smaller by 0.212 mm (Frost NA et al 2015). There may be other confounding factors that influence gingival thickness such as racial and genetic factors (Waraaswapati 2001) The gingiva was found to be thinner in females than males and, in the mandibular arch than the maxilla (Vandana KL & Savitha 2005).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessment of gingival thickness in primary, mixed and permanent dentition: part 3

Shivani

Vandana

2017

IJDR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim and objective: The objective of this in-vivo study was to evaluate gingival thickness of mid buccally and interdentally in primary, mixed & permanent dentition. Method: The study included 40 subjects (22 males and 18 females) with 480 sites of an age range 4-25 Years. Subjects were divided into 3 groups -the primary dentition (4-6 years) mixed dentition (7-13 years) and adult dentition (16-25 years). All the parameters were measured in upper and lower anterior segments. Results: Gingival thickness (GT) was measured arch wise and tooth wise in different dentition and overall dentition wise without differentiating arch wise and toothwise. Gingival thickness (GT) was significantly higher (p=.001) in mixed dentition midbuccally (1.3 +0.46) and interdentally (2.31+0.71) in both the arches. GT (MB) was significantly higher in primary dentition (1.4+0.5) and GT (ID) was significant in mixed dentition (2.6+0.7). Conclusion: Gingival thickness increases from primary to mixed dentition and significantly higher in maxilla.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…No. CODS/ 1977/2015-2016 fulfilling the criteria of RGUHS, India. Informed consent was obtained from the parents of children and subjects involved in the study.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of gingival thickness in primary, mixed and permanent dentition: part 3

Shivani

Vandana

2017

IJDR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Araştırmacılar, ince ve kalın biyotip için net bir eşik sınır değeri oluşturamadıkları bu çalışmada, periodontal sondun diş etinin ince olduğu durumlarda ise görünür olduğu sonucuna varmışlardır. 22 Araştırmamızda ise üst çene anterior bölgede diş eti kalınlığı 0,8 mm'den az olan dişlerin %90,4'ünde, 0,8-1,0 mm arasında olan dişlerin ise %39,9'unda jinjival sulkusa yerleştirilen periodontal sond silüetinin görüldüğü belirlenmiştir.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

“…16,18,19 Günümüzde ise jinjival biyotipin belirlenmesinde güvenilir ve tekrarlanabilir sonuçların elde edildiği periodontal sondlama (PS) ve transjinjival sondlama (TGS) teknikleri tercih edilmektedir. 10,14,22 Bu araştırmanın amacı, jinjival biyotipin belirlenmesinde sıklıkla kullanılan PS ve TGS tekniklerinin güvenirliliklerinin karşılaştırılmasıdır. PS tekniğinde alt ve üst çenede kanin-kanin arası bölgedeki dişlerin bukkal jinjival sulkusuna yerleştirilen periodontal sondun görünürlüğüne göre diş eti ince veya kalın olarak değerlendiril-mektedir.…”

unclassified

Comparison the Reliability of Two Different Measurement Techniques Used to Determine the Gingival Biotype

Alkan¹,

Alkan²,

Kaya³

et al. 2016

Turkiye Klinikleri J Dental Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ö ÖZ ZE ET T A Am ma aç ç: : Bu araştırmanın amacı, jinjival biyotipin belirlenmesinde sık kullanılan periodontal sondlama (PS) ve transjinjival sondlama (TGS) tekniklerinin güvenirliklerinin karşılaştırılmasıdır. G Ge er re eç ç v ve e Y Yö ön nt te em ml le er r: : Araştırmaya periodontal olarak sağlıklı 182 bireye ait 2.184 maksiller ve mandibuler anterior diş dâhil edilmiştir. PS tekniğinde jinjival sulkusa yerleştirilen periodontal sondun görünürlüğüne göre jinjival biyotip ince veya kalın olarak belirlenmiştir. Endodontik "spreader" ve dijital kumpas kullanılarak yapılan TGS tekniğinde ise diş eti kalınlığı 1 mm ve daha az ise ince, 1 mm'den fazla ise kalın biyotip olarak sınıflandırıl-mıştır. İki tekniğin sınıflandırma performanslarını değerlendirmede kullanılan ki-kare testini takiben genel doğruluk oranı hesaplanmıştır. B Bu ul lg gu ul la ar r: : TGS tekniğinde kalın biyotipe sahip dişlerin %96,9'unun PS tekniğinde de kalın biyotipe sahip olduğu, TGS tekniğinde ince biyotipe sahip dişlerin ise %77,4'ünün PS tekniğinde de ince biyotipe sahip olduğu görülmüştür. İnce biyotipe sahip ancak diş eti kalınlığı 0,8 mm'den az olan dişlerin %94,9'unun; 0,8-1,0 mm arasında olan dişlerin ise %42,5'inin jinjival biyotipi PS tekniğiyle de ince olarak sınıflandırılmıştır. Diş eti kalınlığı 0,8 mm'den az olanlardaki ve 0,8-1,0 mm arasında olanlardaki doğru sınıflandırma oranı birbirinden istatistiksel olarak farklı bulunmuştur (p<0,01). Alt-üst çene için değerlendi-rildiğinde TGS tekniğinde ince biyotipe sahip maksiller anterior dişlerin %62,6'sının, mandibuler anterior diş-lerin ise %83,8'inin PS tekniğinde de ince biyotipe sahip olduğu belirlenmiştir. S So on nu uç ç: : İki teknikte sınıflandırmalar için genel doğruluk oranı %84,6 olarak belirlenmiştir. Kalın biyotipe sahip dişlerle, dişeti kalınlığı 0,8 mm'den az olan dişlerde TGS ve PS teknikleriyle benzer sonuçlar elde edildiği, 0,8-1,0 mm arasında olan dişlerde ise iki teknik arasındaki uyumun daha az olduğu görülmüştür.A An na ah h t ta ar r K Ke e l li i m me e l le er r: : Jingival biyotip; periodontal sondlama; transjinjival sondlama A AB BS S T TR RA AC CT T O Ob bj je ec ct ti iv ve e: : The present study aimed to compare the reliability between periodontal probing (PP) and transgingival probing (TGP), which are the most frequently used techniques to determine gingival biotype. M Ma at te er ri ia al l a an nd d M Me et th ho od ds s: : The study comprised 2,184 maxillary and mandibular anterior teeth of 182 periodontally healthy individuals. In PP technique, gingival biotype was identified as thin or thick according to the visibility of periodontal probe, which was placed into the gingival sulcus. In TGP technique, which was performed using endodontic spreader and digital compass, gingival biotype was classified as thin in case gingival thickness was smaller than 1 mm and as thin in case gingival thickness was larger than 1 mm. Overall accuracy rate was calculated after Chi-square test, which was performed to assess classification performance of each tech...

show abstract

“…Initial gingival thickness predicts the outcome of any root coverage procedures or any restorative treatments. Compared with thin gingival biotype, thick ones have obvious advantages in preventing the withdrawal of fibrous tissue and bone tissue [4], besides the support of more blood supply.…”

Section: The Impact Factors Of Soft Tissue Gingival Biotypementioning

confidence: 99%

Principles of Soft Tissue Management in Dental Implants

Mao

2017

J Health Med Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the impact of soft tissue factors in dental implants. Data:Studies evaluating the role of soft tissues in dental implants were included in this review. Sources:A comprehensive literature search of English and Chinese language articles was performed via electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI and VIP) using the appropriate key words(esthetic; evaluation; impact factor; soft tissue). The most recent search took place in January 2016. Study selection:Potentially appropriate articles were identified and evaluated for eligibility through a predefined review process conducted by two examiners. Only 16 out of the 346 identified records met criteria and were included in the final analysis. Conclusion:The success of dental implants depends on two outcomes, the functional utility of the implant and its beauty. During the early phase of treatment, the main objective of a dental implant is to achieve adequate function. In clinical practice, however, subsequent soft tissue retraction and implant exposure have a significantly negative impact on implant esthetics, especially in young women's teeth, which can also be considered as implant failure. It is particularly important to understand how to support the surrounding soft tissue so that it is esthetically pleasing. Keywords How does One Evaluate Soft Tissue Esthetics?The Pink Esthetic Score (PES) is a simple yet complete tool for assessment of esthetic parameters [1]. The PES is a composite score of the tooth volume/outline [2], mesio-gingival papilla, distal gingival papilla, labial margin curvature, labial edge height, and the color and texture of soft tissue.How does one categorize the gingival papilla level? Gingival papilla level 0: no gingival papilla; level 1: gingival papilla < ½ teeth gap; level II: gingival papilla > ½ teeth gap; level III: gingival papilla is full of teeth gap; level IV: gingival papilla overgrowth teeth gap.

show abstract

Periodontal Biotype: Gingival Thickness as It Relates to Probe Visibility and Buccal Plate Thickness

Cited by 95 publications

References 18 publications

Assessment of gingival thickness in primary, mixed and permanent dentition: part 3

Assessment of gingival thickness in primary, mixed and permanent dentition: part 3

Comparison the Reliability of Two Different Measurement Techniques Used to Determine the Gingival Biotype

Principles of Soft Tissue Management in Dental Implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About