Clinical oral investigations · 2017
Gingival biotype revisited-novel classification and assessment tool.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fischer Kai R, Künzlberger Andreas, Donos Nikolaos, Fickl Stefan, Friedmann Anton
Аннотация
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.
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.