| Literature DB >> 28523244 |
Yeşim Kaya1, Özer Alkan1, Sıddık Keskin2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship of gingival thickness (GT) and the width of keratinized gingiva (WKG) with different malocclusion groups and the level of crowding.Entities:
Keywords: Crowding; Gingival thickness
Year: 2017 PMID: 28523244 PMCID: PMC5432439 DOI: 10.4041/kjod.2017.47.3.176
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Korean J Orthod Impact factor: 1.372
Figure 1Gingival thickness measurement.
Distribution of patients according to Angle classification and crowding amount
Chi-square = 6.955; p = 0.138.
Distribution of plaque index, gingival index and probing depth measurements according to Angle classification and crowding amount
Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation.
A, BStatistically significant difference between amount of crowding (p < 0.05).
a, bStatistically significant difference between Angle classification (p < 0.05).
*Two-way (factorial) ANOVAs were performed and interaction was not statistically significant.
Width of keratinized gingiva (WKG) of mandibular anterior teeth according to Angle classification and amount of crowding
Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation.
Two-way (factorial) ANOVAs were performed and interaction was not statistically significant.
A, BStatistically significant difference between amount of crowding (p < 0.05).
There were no statistically significant differences among Angle classifications (p > 0.05).
Gingival thickness (GT) of mandibular anterior teeth according to Angle classification and amount of crowding
Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation.
Two-way (factorial) ANOVAs were performed and interaction was not statistically significant.
A, BStatistically significant difference between amount of crowding (p < 0.05).
a, bStatistically significant difference between Angle classification (p < 0.05).
Gingival thickness (GT) of the mandibular anterior region according to Angle classification and amount of crowding
Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation (range).
Two-way (factorial) ANOVAs were performed and interaction was not statistically significant.