Aniruddha Joshi1, Girish Suragimath2, Sameer Anil Zope3, S R Ashwinirani4, Siddhartha A Varma5. 1. Postgraduate Student, Department of Periodontology, School of Dental Sciences, KIMSDU, Karad, Maharashtra, India. 2. Professor and Head, Department of Periodontology, School of Dental Sciences, KIMSDU, Karad, Maharashtra, India. 3. Senior Lecturer, Department of Periodontology, School of Dental Sciences, KIMSDU, Karad, Maharashtra, India. 4. Senior Lecturer, Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, School of Dental Sciences, KIMSDU, Karad, Maharashtra, India. 5. Reader, Department of Periodontology, School of Dental Sciences, KIMSDU, Karad, Maharashtra, India.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Clinical and aesthetic outcomes after periodontal or implant surgical procedures are determined by anatomical and morphological characteristics of the gingiva like width of keratinized gingiva, thickness of gingiva and alveolar bone. Therefore, the knowledge of gingival biotype plays an important role in modifying the dental therapeutic procedures for the desired outcome and predictability. AIM: The aim of the present study was to assess and compare the gingival biotype among genders by clinical, photographic and radiographic parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 800 subjects (400 males and 400 females) were considered for the study. Width of keratinized gingiva (GW), transparency of the periodontal probe through the sulcus (TRAN) were assessed clinically; Crown Width/Crown Length ratio (CW/CL) and Papillary Height (PH) were assessed photographically; Gingival Thickness (GT1, GT2, GT3) and Alveolar bone Thickness (AT1, AT2, AT3) were assessed radiographically. The obtained data was correlated to compare the gingival biotype between males and females. The collected data was statistically analysed using Pearson correlation coefficient (r) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: The TRAN at GT1, GT2 and GT3 as well as at AT1, AT2 and AT3 showed a very strong positive correlation in males (r>0.8) as compared to females (r<0.8). A very strong positive correlation was observed between GT1, GT2, GT3 and AT1, AT2, AT3 in males (r>0.9) as compared to females (r<0.7). CONCLUSION: There are definite differences in the gingival biotype among different genders with predominance of a thin gingival biotype with reduced alveolar bone thickness in females as compared to males.
INTRODUCTION: Clinical and aesthetic outcomes after periodontal or implant surgical procedures are determined by anatomical and morphological characteristics of the gingiva like width of keratinized gingiva, thickness of gingiva and alveolar bone. Therefore, the knowledge of gingival biotype plays an important role in modifying the dental therapeutic procedures for the desired outcome and predictability. AIM: The aim of the present study was to assess and compare the gingival biotype among genders by clinical, photographic and radiographic parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 800 subjects (400 males and 400 females) were considered for the study. Width of keratinized gingiva (GW), transparency of the periodontal probe through the sulcus (TRAN) were assessed clinically; Crown Width/Crown Length ratio (CW/CL) and Papillary Height (PH) were assessed photographically; Gingival Thickness (GT1, GT2, GT3) and Alveolar bone Thickness (AT1, AT2, AT3) were assessed radiographically. The obtained data was correlated to compare the gingival biotype between males and females. The collected data was statistically analysed using Pearson correlation coefficient (r) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: The TRAN at GT1, GT2 and GT3 as well as at AT1, AT2 and AT3 showed a very strong positive correlation in males (r>0.8) as compared to females (r<0.8). A very strong positive correlation was observed between GT1, GT2, GT3 and AT1, AT2, AT3 in males (r>0.9) as compared to females (r<0.7). CONCLUSION: There are definite differences in the gingival biotype among different genders with predominance of a thin gingival biotype with reduced alveolar bone thickness in females as compared to males.
Authors: Joseph Y K Kan; Taichiro Morimoto; Kitichai Rungcharassaeng; Phillip Roe; Dennis H Smith Journal: Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 1.840
Authors: Jamal M Stein; Nils Lintel-Höping; Christian Hammächer; Adrian Kasaj; Miriam Tamm; Oliver Hanisch Journal: J Clin Periodontol Date: 2013-10-16 Impact factor: 8.728
Authors: Šimon Belák; Radovan Žižka; Martin Starosta; Jana Zapletalová; Jiří Šedý; Michal Štefanatný Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2021-01-23 Impact factor: 2.757
Authors: Nancy E Córdova-Limaylla; José C Rosas-Díaz; Rocío Alvarez-Medina; Jerson J Palomino-Zorrilla; Maria E Guerrero-Acevedo; Luis A Cervantes-Ganoza; Carlos López-Gurreonero; César F Cayo-Rojas Journal: J Int Soc Prev Community Dent Date: 2021-11-30