Thick vs. Thin Gingival Biotypes: A Key Determinant in Treatment Planning for Dental Implants

Kao, Richard T.; Fagan, Mark C.; Conte, Gregory J.

doi:10.1080/19424396.2008.12221481

Cited by 79 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the literature, the terms “gingival phenotype” and “gingival biotype” are frequently used as a unique concept to define the thickness of the gingiva in the bucco‐palatal dimension, which can be considered thick or thin (Kao et al, 2008; Melsen & Allais, 2005). However, since the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri‐Implant Diseases and Conditions (Jepsen et al, 2018), the adoption of the “periodontal phenotype” (PP) has been strongly suggested.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Díaz,

Fan,

Urrutia

et al. 2023

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimTo assess the correlation between the periodontal phenotype (PP) and sinus membrane thickness (SMT) in humans.MethodsThis review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Two reviewers independently carried out electronic and manual literature searches of studies published in English, German, and Spanish, from 1970 to September 2022 in four electronic databases, PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, in addition to gray literature. Studies that assessed the correlation between PP and SMT in adults (aged 18 years) were included. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Appraisal Tool for Cross‐Sectional Studies (AXIS) for articles that met the eligibility criteria.ResultsSix studies, including 510 patients, were considered for qualitative analysis. All included studies were cross‐sectional, and the correlation between the PP and SMT was evaluated, finding a positive and high correlation in 83.3% of them, based on a value of ≥0.7. All the included studies were assessed with a high overall risk of bias.ConclusionsPeriodontal phenotype and sinus membrane thickness are likely correlated. Nevertheless, further standardized studies are required to draw definitive conclusions.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the literature, the terms "gingival phenotype" and "gingival biotype" are frequently used as a unique concept to define the thickness of the gingiva in the bucco-palatal dimension, which can be considered thick or thin (Kao et al, 2008;Melsen & Allais, 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Díaz,

Fan,

Urrutia

et al. 2023

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Likewise, esthetic complications may also occur due to the visibility of metallic coping/abutment of fixed tooth or implant supported prostheses, through gingival transparency 4,5 . The thick phenotype has, on the other hand, greater stability during tissue remodeling, being more resistant to mechanical trauma and gingival recession 6–8 . Therefore, the identification of the gingival phenotype is a key factor during the periodontal and implant treatment planning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4,5 The thick phenotype has, on the other hand, greater stability during tissue remodeling, being more resistant to mechanical trauma and gingival recession. [6][7][8] Therefore, the identification of the gingival phenotype is a key factor during the periodontal and implant treatment planning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification of thin and thick gingival phenotypes by two transparency methods: A diagnostic accuracy study

Costa

Perussolo

Dias

et al. 2022

Journal of Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There is limited information on the diagnostic accuracy of the transparency method to diagnose gingival phenotypes taking into consideration not only the gingival thickness (GT) but also the keratinized tissue width (KTW).Thus, the aim of the present study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of two transparency methods using a conventional steel probe (SP) and a plastic color-coded probe (CCP) to identify thin and thick gingival phenotypes.Methods: Maxillary anterior teeth (n = 300) of 50 individuals were included in this study. The GT was measured via transgingival assessment at 2 mm apical to the gingival margin. Tooth sites were subdivided into thin or thick phenotypes according to the corresponding GT, respectively, ≤1 mm and >1 mm. SP and CCP were used to determine the gingival phenotype by the transparency method. The KTW was also evaluated. The diagnostic accuracy of the experimental periodontal probes to identify the thin and thick gingival phenotypes were compared. Results: Of 300 gingival sites evaluated, 57% (n = 172) were identified as thin (GT: 0.82 ± 0.12 mm, KTW: 4 ± 1.2 mm) and 43% (n = 128) as thick phenotypes (GT: 1.16 ± 0.12 mm, KTW: 4.3 ± 1.3 mm) by the transgingival method. The SP and CCP were very sensitive (>0.94) to identify the thin phenotype, however, less specific (0.35-0.39) to diagnose thick phenotype. The diagnostic accuracy for the SP and CCP was similar, 0.69 and 0.70, respectively. Conclusion:The steel and color-coded plastic probe were equally effective in identifying thin gingival phenotype at maxillary anterior tooth sites.

show abstract

“…The type of gingival phenotype has a significant impact on the course of wound healing after surgical and regenerative treatment [5]. Proper determination of the gingival phenotype allows for the creation of an optimal treatment plan and may protect against complications in orthodontic, periodontal, prosthetic, and dental implant treatment [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. In the diagnosis of the gingival phenotype, methods based on the shape of the crowns of upper incisors, and based on the transparency of the free gingiva of the upper incisors, the dimension of gingival papillae, and the width of the keratinized tissue are used [14,15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the Effectiveness of the Ultrasonic Method and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Combined with Intraoral Scanning and Prosthetic-Driven Implant Planning Method in Determining the Gingival Phenotype in the Healthy Periodontium

Bednarz-Tumidajewicz

Furtak

Zakrzewska

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of two diagnostic methods: ultrasonic gingival thickness measurement (UGTM) and cone-beam computed tomography, intraoral scanning by computer-aided design technology with prosthetic-driven implant planning software (CBCT/CAD/PDIP) in determining the gingival phenotype (GP). Thirty periodontally healthy patients were examined. The ultrasonic device Pirop G® with a frequency of 20 MHz and CBCT/CAD/PDIP were used to measure gingival thickness at upper canines and incisors in three points localized midbuccally, namely free gingival thickness (FGT), supracrestal (SGT) and crestal (CGT). Probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL) and width of keratinized tissue (WKT) were measured using periodontal probe. Intra-examiner and inter-examiner agreement and agreement between methods were evaluated using Bland-Altman analyses. Comparing both methods in the determination of SGT (bias = 0.17 mm, SD = 0.25 mm, p < 0.000) and CGT (bias = −0.45 mm, SD = 0.32 mm, p < 0.000) 95.0% and 95.6% agreement were found, respectively, and in the FGT range only 93.3% (bias = −0.45 mm, SD = 0.32 mm, p < 0.000). The presence of positive correlations between WKT and SGT was shown. A positive correlation between SGT and WKT confirms the purpose of measuring these parameters for the evaluation of the GP. Both the ultrasonic method and cone-beam computed tomography combined with intraoral scanning and prosthetic-driven implant planning method were useful in determining gingival phenotype, however, the ultrasonic method was more accurate for measuring GT.

show abstract

Thick vs. Thin Gingival Biotypes: A Key Determinant in Treatment Planning for Dental Implants

Cited by 79 publications

References 10 publications

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

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

Identification of thin and thick gingival phenotypes by two transparency methods: A diagnostic accuracy study

Comparison of the Effectiveness of the Ultrasonic Method and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Combined with Intraoral Scanning and Prosthetic-Driven Implant Planning Method in Determining the Gingival Phenotype in the Healthy Periodontium

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About