Kai R Fischer1,2, Andreas Künzlberger3, Nikolaos Donos4, Stefan Fickl5, Anton Friedmann6. 1. private practice, Würzburg, Germany. kai.fischer@uni-wh.de. 2. Department for Periodontology, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany. kai.fischer@uni-wh.de. 3. Department for Oral Surgery, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany. 4. Centre of Oral Clinical Research, Institute of Dentistry, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, QMUL, London, UK. 5. Department for Periodontology, Julius-Maximilians-University Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany. 6. Department for Periodontology, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relationship between gingival biotypes and gingival thickness based on probe transparency through the gingival margin and to assess the sensitivity of a novel classification method. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty adult Caucasian subjects were stratified by their gingival biotype (GB) as defined by the transparency of a prototype double-ended periodontal probe through the buccal gingival margin into "thin" (30 subjects), "moderate" (15 subjects), and "thick" (15 subjects) GB. Three additional parameters were also assessed: gingival thickness (GT), probing depth (PD), and gingival width (GW). RESULTS: Median GT was 0.43 mm (P 25% 0.32; P 75% 0.58) for thin, 0.74 mm (P 25% 0.58; P 75% 0.81) for moderate, and 0.83 mm (P 25% 0.74; P 75% 0.95) for thick GB, respectively. GT was statistically significant different for thin versus moderate and thin versus thick, respectively (Kruskal-Wallis test, p < 0.05; Dunn's test, thin versus moderate: p = 0.002; thin versus thick: p < 0.001; moderate versus thick: p = 0.089). GW was directly correlated with GT (Spearman correlation p < 0.01). The sensitivity of the new classification tool for diagnosing a thin GB was 91.3%. No adverse events or complications were reported. CONCLUSION: GT differs significantly between the presented GB groups, hence, an alternative classification especially focusing on thin biotypes based on a modified periodontal probe might be advantageous. In addition, the presence of a thick gingiva is associated with a wide band of keratinized tissue. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This clinical setting might to be useful to identify high-risk patients with a very thin biotype and, consequently, higher risk for gingival recession after dental treatments.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relationship between gingival biotypes and gingival thickness based on probe transparency through the gingival margin and to assess the sensitivity of a novel classification method. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty adult Caucasian subjects were stratified by their gingival biotype (GB) as defined by the transparency of a prototype double-ended periodontal probe through the buccal gingival margin into "thin" (30 subjects), "moderate" (15 subjects), and "thick" (15 subjects) GB. Three additional parameters were also assessed: gingival thickness (GT), probing depth (PD), and gingival width (GW). RESULTS: Median GT was 0.43 mm (P 25% 0.32; P 75% 0.58) for thin, 0.74 mm (P 25% 0.58; P 75% 0.81) for moderate, and 0.83 mm (P 25% 0.74; P 75% 0.95) for thick GB, respectively. GT was statistically significant different for thin versus moderate and thin versus thick, respectively (Kruskal-Wallis test, p < 0.05; Dunn's test, thin versus moderate: p = 0.002; thin versus thick: p < 0.001; moderate versus thick: p = 0.089). GW was directly correlated with GT (Spearman correlation p < 0.01). The sensitivity of the new classification tool for diagnosing a thin GB was 91.3%. No adverse events or complications were reported. CONCLUSION: GT differs significantly between the presented GB groups, hence, an alternative classification especially focusing on thin biotypes based on a modified periodontal probe might be advantageous. In addition, the presence of a thick gingiva is associated with a wide band of keratinized tissue. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This clinical setting might to be useful to identify high-risk patients with a very thin biotype and, consequently, higher risk for gingival recession after dental treatments.
Authors: Scott B Ross; Gregory A Pette; William B Parker; Patrick Hardigan Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants Date: 2014 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Kai R Fischer; Timo Richter; Moritz Kebschull; Nicole Petersen; Stefan Fickl Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2014-03-01 Impact factor: 5.977
Authors: Ronald E Jung; Irena Sailer; Christoph H F Hämmerle; Thomas Attin; Patrick Schmidlin Journal: Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 1.840
Authors: Kai R Fischer; Jasmin Büchel; Frederic Kauffmann; Christian Heumann; Anton Friedmann; Patrick R Schmidlin Journal: Clin Exp Dent Res Date: 2021-11-11