Cargando…

Comparative in vitro study of two methods for gingival biotype assessment

BACKGROUND: The gingival thickness seems to have an important role in different dental treatments. There are different methods of quantifying this thickness, but it is not known which of them can be the most effective. The objective to assess the accuracy of two different methods for gingival thickn...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sala, Leticia, Alonso-Pérez, Raquel, Agustin-Panadero, Ruben, Ferreiroa, Alberto, Carrillo-de-Albornoz, Ana
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medicina Oral S.L. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6203915/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30386517
http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.55049
_version_ 1783365959871889408
author Sala, Leticia
Alonso-Pérez, Raquel
Agustin-Panadero, Ruben
Ferreiroa, Alberto
Carrillo-de-Albornoz, Ana
author_facet Sala, Leticia
Alonso-Pérez, Raquel
Agustin-Panadero, Ruben
Ferreiroa, Alberto
Carrillo-de-Albornoz, Ana
author_sort Sala, Leticia
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The gingival thickness seems to have an important role in different dental treatments. There are different methods of quantifying this thickness, but it is not known which of them can be the most effective. The objective to assess the accuracy of two different methods for gingival thickness measurement: the transgingival needle probing (TGNP) and the tension-free caliper (TFC) in an in vitro model, by comparing them with direct physical measurements (reference standard). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Gingival thickness (GT) was evaluated in 27 female pigs with four implant sites 1, 2 and 3mm from the gingival margin with three different methods: 1) transgingival needle probing 2) tension-free caliper and 3) Direct visualization after making a incision in the mucosa and measuring GT with a periodontal probe. Wilcoxon test for paired samples were used with a confident level of 95%. RESULTS: A total of 324 points were measured, 59% of the sites presented a thin biotype with DV, it was correctly assessed with the TGNP in 84% of the times and in 86% with the TFC. 41% of the sample presented thick biotype, 76% was the percentage measured with the TGNP and 0% of the sites evaluated with TFC resulted in this biotype. CONCLUSIONS: Transgingival needle probing constitutes an accurate method when measuring GT at different levels. Tension free caliper is not a good tool for assessing the gingival biotype as long as it is unable to predict thick biotype. Key words:Periodontal Biotype, Gingival Thickness, Periodontal Tissue and Diagnosis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6203915
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Medicina Oral S.L.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62039152018-10-31 Comparative in vitro study of two methods for gingival biotype assessment Sala, Leticia Alonso-Pérez, Raquel Agustin-Panadero, Ruben Ferreiroa, Alberto Carrillo-de-Albornoz, Ana J Clin Exp Dent Research BACKGROUND: The gingival thickness seems to have an important role in different dental treatments. There are different methods of quantifying this thickness, but it is not known which of them can be the most effective. The objective to assess the accuracy of two different methods for gingival thickness measurement: the transgingival needle probing (TGNP) and the tension-free caliper (TFC) in an in vitro model, by comparing them with direct physical measurements (reference standard). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Gingival thickness (GT) was evaluated in 27 female pigs with four implant sites 1, 2 and 3mm from the gingival margin with three different methods: 1) transgingival needle probing 2) tension-free caliper and 3) Direct visualization after making a incision in the mucosa and measuring GT with a periodontal probe. Wilcoxon test for paired samples were used with a confident level of 95%. RESULTS: A total of 324 points were measured, 59% of the sites presented a thin biotype with DV, it was correctly assessed with the TGNP in 84% of the times and in 86% with the TFC. 41% of the sample presented thick biotype, 76% was the percentage measured with the TGNP and 0% of the sites evaluated with TFC resulted in this biotype. CONCLUSIONS: Transgingival needle probing constitutes an accurate method when measuring GT at different levels. Tension free caliper is not a good tool for assessing the gingival biotype as long as it is unable to predict thick biotype. Key words:Periodontal Biotype, Gingival Thickness, Periodontal Tissue and Diagnosis. Medicina Oral S.L. 2018-09-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6203915/ /pubmed/30386517 http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.55049 Text en Copyright: © 2018 Medicina Oral S.L. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Sala, Leticia
Alonso-Pérez, Raquel
Agustin-Panadero, Ruben
Ferreiroa, Alberto
Carrillo-de-Albornoz, Ana
Comparative in vitro study of two methods for gingival biotype assessment
title Comparative in vitro study of two methods for gingival biotype assessment
title_full Comparative in vitro study of two methods for gingival biotype assessment
title_fullStr Comparative in vitro study of two methods for gingival biotype assessment
title_full_unstemmed Comparative in vitro study of two methods for gingival biotype assessment
title_short Comparative in vitro study of two methods for gingival biotype assessment
title_sort comparative in vitro study of two methods for gingival biotype assessment
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6203915/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30386517
http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.55049
work_keys_str_mv AT salaleticia comparativeinvitrostudyoftwomethodsforgingivalbiotypeassessment
AT alonsoperezraquel comparativeinvitrostudyoftwomethodsforgingivalbiotypeassessment
AT agustinpanaderoruben comparativeinvitrostudyoftwomethodsforgingivalbiotypeassessment
AT ferreiroaalberto comparativeinvitrostudyoftwomethodsforgingivalbiotypeassessment
AT carrillodealbornozana comparativeinvitrostudyoftwomethodsforgingivalbiotypeassessment