Periodontal Biotype: Gingival Thickness as It Relates to Probe Visibility and Buccal Plate Thickness

Background: Probe visibility is the clinical gold standard to discriminate thick from thin biotype but is prone to subjective interpretation. The primary objective of this study is to determine at what objective gingival thickness the probe becomes invisible through the tissue. A secondary objective...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of periodontology (1970) 2015-10, Vol.86 (10), p.1141-1149
Main Authors: Frost, Natalie A., Mealey, Brian L., Jones, Archie A., Huynh‐Ba, Guy
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Aged
Alveolar Process - anatomy & histology
Alveolar Process - diagnostic imaging
Area Under Curve
Bicuspid - anatomy & histology
Bone and bones
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography - methods
cone‐beam computed tomography
Cuspid - anatomy & histology
Dentistry
Female
gingiva
Gingiva - anatomy & histology
Humans
Incisor - anatomy & histology
Male
Maxilla - anatomy & histology
Maxilla - diagnostic imaging
Middle Aged
Periodontal Ligament - anatomy & histology
Periodontics - instrumentation
phenotype
ROC Curve
Sensitivity and Specificity
Young Adult
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background: Probe visibility is the clinical gold standard to discriminate thick from thin biotype but is prone to subjective interpretation. The primary objective of this study is to determine at what objective gingival thickness the probe becomes invisible through the tissue. A secondary objective is to compare mean buccal plate thickness between thick and thin biotypes as determined by probe visibility. Methods: Maxillary anterior teeth (n = 306) were studied in 56 human patients. Biotype was determined by probe visibility through the tissue. Gingival thickness was measured via transgingival sounding. Buccal plate thickness was measured (n = 66 teeth) by cone beam computed tomography. For the primary objective, the gingival thickness that best corresponded with probe invisibility was selected using the receiver operating characteristic and area under the curve (AUC) with the highest combination of sensitivity and specificity. For the secondary objective, mean buccal plate thickness was compared between sites in which the probe was visible and when it was not (Student t test, α= 0.05). Results: The gingival thickness that most closely corresponded with probe invisibility was >0.8 mm (0.666 AUC, 67.7% sensitivity, 65.4% specificity). When the probe was visible, mean gingival thickness was 0.17 mm less (P
ISSN:0022-3492
1943-3670
DOI:10.1902/jop.2015.140394