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
. 2017 Jul:79:1-6.
doi: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2017.02.021. Epub 2017 Mar 1.

Assessment of gingival biotype and facial hard/soft tissue dimensions in the maxillary anterior teeth region using cone beam computed tomography

Affiliations

Assessment of gingival biotype and facial hard/soft tissue dimensions in the maxillary anterior teeth region using cone beam computed tomography

Reza Amid et al. Arch Oral Biol. 2017 Jul.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Bone thickness; Cone beam computed tomography; Dentogingival complex; Gingival biotype; Gingival thickness; Periodontal biotype.

PubMed Disclaimer

MeSH terms