» Articles » PMID: 28551728

Gingival Biotype Revisited-novel Classification and Assessment Tool

Overview
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2017 May 29
PMID 28551728
Citations 21
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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 0.32; P 0.58) for thin, 0.74 mm (P 0.58; P 0.81) for moderate, and 0.83 mm (P 0.74; P 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.

Citing Articles

Evaluation of gingival phenotype: the role of gingival thickness measurements from different vertical gingival levels.

Yildirim Bolat S, Lutfioglu M Clin Oral Investig. 2025; 29(1):87.

PMID: 39856472 PMC: 11761086. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-024-06143-x.


Efficacy of xenogeneic collagen matrix in the treatment of gingival recessions: a controlled clinical trial.

Menezes K, Borges S, Medeiros I, Gomes G, Roncalli A, Gurgel B Braz Oral Res. 2024; 38:e111.

PMID: 39536202 PMC: 11552456. DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2024.vol38.0111.


Topographical and histological analysis of keratinized mucosal grafts removal techniques an ex-vivo study in porcine mandibles.

Dos Santos K, Leles J, Roriz V, Leles C Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):13066.

PMID: 38844764 PMC: 11156962. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-58559-w.


Clinical decision and related factors influencing implant direction in the esthetic area.

Liu Y, Yuan Q Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2023; 41(5):512-520.

PMID: 37805675 PMC: 10580232. DOI: 10.7518/hxkq.2023.2023151.


Correlation between Gingival Thickness and Occurrence of Gingival Recession.

Koppolu P, Al Arabi A, Al Khayri M, Alfaraj F, Alsafwani W, Alhozaimi S J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2023; 15(Suppl 1):S495-S501.

PMID: 37654274 PMC: 10466527. DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_585_22.


References
1.
Sailer I, Zembic A, Jung R, Hammerle C, Mattiola A . Single-tooth implant reconstructions: esthetic factors influencing the decision between titanium and zirconia abutments in anterior regions. Eur J Esthet Dent. 2009; 2(3):296-310. View

2.
Chen S, Buser D . Esthetic outcomes following immediate and early implant placement in the anterior maxilla--a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29 Suppl:186-215. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g3.3. View

3.
Eghbali A, De Rouck T, De Bruyn H, Cosyn J . The gingival biotype assessed by experienced and inexperienced clinicians. J Clin Periodontol. 2009; 36(11):958-63. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2009.01479.x. View

4.
Fu J, Lee A, Wang H . Influence of tissue biotype on implant esthetics. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011; 26(3):499-508. View

5.
Ross S, Pette G, Parker W, Hardigan P . Gingival margin changes in maxillary anterior sites after single immediate implant placement and provisionalization: a 5-year retrospective study of 47 patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29(1):127-34. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.3124. View