Archives of oral biology · 2017
Assessment of gingival biotype and facial hard/soft tissue dimensions in the maxillary anterior teeth region using cone beam computed tomography.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Amid Reza, Mirakhori Mahdieh, Safi Yaser, Kadkhodazadeh Mahdi, Namdari Mahshid
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study sought to assess the relationship between facial gingival and bone dimensions in maxillary anterior teeth region using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).
DESIGN: This study assessed 621 maxillary anterior teeth in 144 patients. In the sagittal plane, facial bone thickness (BT) and gingival thickness (GT) were measured at the crestal level and at 2, 4 and 6mm apical to the cementoenamel junction (CEJ). The dentogingival complex (DGC) dimensions and the distance from the CEJ to bone crest were also measured on CBCT scans. To determine the gingival biotype, GT at 2mm apical to the gingival margin was measured and GT <1.5mm was categorized as thin while GT ≥1.5mm was categorized as thick. The data were analyzed using SPSS version 21 via repeated measures ANOVA and the Cochrane's Q, chi-square and independent samples t-tests.
RESULTS: The BT around the maxillary central and lateral incisors and canine teeth at 4 and 6mm apical to the CEJ was significantly different in thick and thin gingival biotypes (P<0.05). The mean GT at 2 and 4mm apical to the CEJ was significantly different around central and lateral incisors (P<0.05). Thickness of crestal bone was significantly different between the two gingival biotypes around central and lateral incisors (P<0.05).
CONCLUSION: The two gingival biotypes had significantly different mean BT; different biotypes and their relationship to BT varied around anterior maxillary teeth.
DESIGN: This study assessed 621 maxillary anterior teeth in 144 patients. In the sagittal plane, facial bone thickness (BT) and gingival thickness (GT) were measured at the crestal level and at 2, 4 and 6mm apical to the cementoenamel junction (CEJ). The dentogingival complex (DGC) dimensions and the distance from the CEJ to bone crest were also measured on CBCT scans. To determine the gingival biotype, GT at 2mm apical to the gingival margin was measured and GT <1.5mm was categorized as thin while GT ≥1.5mm was categorized as thick. The data were analyzed using SPSS version 21 via repeated measures ANOVA and the Cochrane's Q, chi-square and independent samples t-tests.
RESULTS: The BT around the maxillary central and lateral incisors and canine teeth at 4 and 6mm apical to the CEJ was significantly different in thick and thin gingival biotypes (P<0.05). The mean GT at 2 and 4mm apical to the CEJ was significantly different around central and lateral incisors (P<0.05). Thickness of crestal bone was significantly different between the two gingival biotypes around central and lateral incisors (P<0.05).
CONCLUSION: The two gingival biotypes had significantly different mean BT; different biotypes and their relationship to BT varied around anterior maxillary teeth.