Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 1999 Aug;88(2):248-53.
doi: 10.1016/s1079-2104(99)70123-x.

Ultrasonic determination of thickness of masticatory mucosa: a methodologic study

Affiliations

Ultrasonic determination of thickness of masticatory mucosa: a methodologic study

H P Müller et al. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1999 Aug.

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the present study was to assess the reliability and validity of ultrasonic measurements of thickness of the masticatory mucosa.

Study design: Eleven periodontally healthy subjects took part. Thickness of the buccal gingiva was assessed midbuccally and interdentally. In the maxilla, the palatal mucosa was measured at every tooth midpalatally, between the first and second molars, and between the second and third molars at each of 3 defined locations 4 mm apart. In the mandible, thickness of the lingual gingiva was measured midlingually as well as interdentally between the first and second molars and between the second and third molars. Thickness of the retromolar mucosa was also assessed. All 1,293 measurements were repeated after 24 hours. Validity of measurements was tested in a porcine model.

Results: Mean (+/- standard deviation) thickness of the midbuccal and midlingual gingiva was 0.99+/-0.52 mm; the measurement error was 0.26 mm. Measurements were well correlated (Pearson's r = .74, P<.001). Mean thickness of the papillary gingiva was 1.19+/-0.53 mm; the measurement error was 0.37 mm (r = .58, P<.001). A lower reliability was observed for palatal measurements of mucosal thickness; mean thickness was 2.36+/-0.87 mm, and measurement error was 0.54 mm (r = .64, P<.001). The validity of measurements was excellent in the 0.5-4.5 mm range.

Conclusions: Differences in reliability of ultrasonic assessments of mucosal thickness in different parts of the oral cavity may depend on the difficulties of repeatedly measuring at the same location, on varying thickness of the tissues, and on expression of palatal rugae. These problems might be resolved by averaging multiple measurements.

PubMed Disclaimer