Sa Cha1, Sueng Min Lee1, Chengxiaoxue Zhang1, Zhen Tan2, Qing Zhao3. 1. State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & Department of Orthodontics, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 2. Department of Implantology, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 3. State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & Department of Orthodontics, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. fanfan_qing@163.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the correlation between gingival phenotype and craniofacial profile and to evaluate the morphology of periodontal supporting tissues in the maxillary and mandibular anterior zones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 66 patients with 264 central incisors in good periodontal health were included in this cross-sectional study. CBCT images were used to assess gingiva and alveolar bone thickness of the maxillary and mandibular incisors at four vertical levels. Cephalometric analysis was used to assess the sagittal profile of the craniofacial structures. Gingival thickness was compared in patients with different craniofacial profiles based on ANB value. Linear regression coefficients adjusted by age and gender were used to evaluate the correlation between gingival thickness and the cephalometric parameters. RESULTS: Individuals with a smaller ANB value (ANB< 2) presented with thinner supporting tissue and a keratinized gingiva width in the anterior zone. Labial gingival thickness on the mandibular incisors at the cementoenamel junction (G1) and at the alveolar bone crest (G2) was positively related to cephalometric measures, indicating a maxillae-mandibular sagittal relationship (ANB value, Wits appraisal, A-NPog value). CONCLUSIONS: A moderate correlation was found between mandibular gingival thickness and the sagittal craniofacial profile. Patients with a concave craniofacial profile had a smaller keratinized gingiva width and gingival thickness in the aesthetic zone. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Knowledge of these features on supporting tissue and their correlations with craniofacial morphology will help clinicians to develop a reasonable treatment plan and make decisions to achieve the best aesthetic outcome.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the correlation between gingival phenotype and craniofacial profile and to evaluate the morphology of periodontal supporting tissues in the maxillary and mandibular anterior zones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 66 patients with 264 central incisors in good periodontal health were included in this cross-sectional study. CBCT images were used to assess gingiva and alveolar bone thickness of the maxillary and mandibular incisors at four vertical levels. Cephalometric analysis was used to assess the sagittal profile of the craniofacial structures. Gingival thickness was compared in patients with different craniofacial profiles based on ANB value. Linear regression coefficients adjusted by age and gender were used to evaluate the correlation between gingival thickness and the cephalometric parameters. RESULTS: Individuals with a smaller ANB value (ANB< 2) presented with thinner supporting tissue and a keratinized gingiva width in the anterior zone. Labial gingival thickness on the mandibular incisors at the cementoenamel junction (G1) and at the alveolar bone crest (G2) was positively related to cephalometric measures, indicating a maxillae-mandibular sagittal relationship (ANB value, Wits appraisal, A-NPog value). CONCLUSIONS: A moderate correlation was found between mandibular gingival thickness and the sagittal craniofacial profile. Patients with a concave craniofacial profile had a smaller keratinized gingiva width and gingival thickness in the aesthetic zone. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Knowledge of these features on supporting tissue and their correlations with craniofacial morphology will help clinicians to develop a reasonable treatment plan and make decisions to achieve the best aesthetic outcome.
Authors: Magdalena Bednarz-Tumidajewicz; Aneta Furtak; Aneta Zakrzewska; Małgorzata Rąpała; Karolina Gerreth; Tomasz Gedrange; Wojciech Bednarz Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-27 Impact factor: 4.614