» Articles » PMID: 37445430

Comparative Evaluation of the Accuracy of Gingival Thickness Measurement by Clinical Evaluation and Intraoral Ultrasonography

Overview
Journal J Clin Med
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2023 Jul 14
PMID 37445430
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the accuracy of gingival thickness measurement by two methods of clinical evaluation and intraoral ultrasonography. The gingival thickness was measured in the midbuccal area of the right maxillary lateral incisor and first molar teeth in 30 individuals. For clinical measurement, a #15 K-file with rubber stops was vertically inserted 2 mm apical to the gingival margin and the length of the file in the tissue was measured using a digital caliper. Ultrasonographic measurement was performed using an intraoral probe on the gingival surface in the midbuccal area, at the entry point of the file. Statistical analysis was performed by paired t-test, correlation coefficient, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (α = 0.05). In the anterior region, the mean gingival thicknesses using ultrasonography (1.517 ± 0.293 mm) and clinical evaluation (1.610 ± 0.272 mm) were not significantly different ( = 0.434). In the posterior region, the mean gingival thicknesses were significantly different between ultrasonography (1.372 ± 0.442 mm) and clinical evaluation (1.626 ± 0.310 mm) ( = 0.006). The area under ROC curve values for ultrasonographic measurements in the anterior and posterior regions were 0.681 and 0.597, respectively. The use of ultrasonography with an intraoral probe has acceptable accuracy for the determination of gingival thickness, especially for the anterior regions.

Citing Articles

Digital photometric analysis as a non-invasive method to determine gingival phenotype: A comparative study.

Altaweel S, Sehli M, Khogeer M, Ayyash R, Al Zahrani S, Al-Ghalib T Saudi Dent J. 2024; 36(11):1466-1471.

PMID: 39619719 PMC: 11605722. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2024.09.005.


Relationship Between Cone-Beam CT Evaluation and Clinical Evaluation Before and After Orthodontic Treatment and the Rate of Gingival Recession: A Systematic Review.

Alsulaimani L, Qali M Cureus. 2024; 16(6):e62536.

PMID: 39022498 PMC: 11254124. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.62536.


Soft Tissue Retraction Maneuver in Cone Beam Computed Tomography Prior to Crown-Lengthening Procedure-A Technical Note.

Adamska P, Stasiak M, Dabrowski W, Pylinska-Dabrowska D, Adamski L, Zedler A J Clin Med. 2024; 13(13).

PMID: 38999234 PMC: 11242734. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13133668.

References
1.
Zawawi K, Al-Zahrani M . Gingival biotype in relation to incisors' inclination and position. Saudi Med J. 2014; 35(11):1378-83. PMC: 4362146. View

2.
Reda R, Zanza A, Cicconetti A, Bhandi S, Miccoli G, Gambarini G . Ultrasound Imaging in Dentistry: A Literature Overview. J Imaging. 2021; 7(11). PMC: 8624259. DOI: 10.3390/jimaging7110238. View

3.
Consiglio R, Rengo S, Liguoro D, Riccitiello F, Formisano S, Palumbo G . Inhibition by glass-ionomer cements of protein synthesis by human gingival fibroblasts in continuous culture. Arch Oral Biol. 1998; 43(1):65-71. DOI: 10.1016/s0003-9969(97)00087-3. View

4.
Fan S, Saenz-Ravello G, Al-Nawas B, Schiegnitz E, Diaz L, Sagheb K . The feasibility of ultrasonography for the measurement of periodontal and peri-implant phenotype: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2023; 25(5):892-909. DOI: 10.1111/cid.13231. View

5.
Avetisyan A, Markaryan M, Rokaya D, Tovani-Palone M, Zafar M, Khurshid Z . Characteristics of Periodontal Tissues in Prosthetic Treatment with Fixed Dental Prostheses. Molecules. 2021; 26(5). PMC: 7958327. DOI: 10.3390/molecules26051331. View