Cargando…

In Vivo Evaluation of Periodontal Phenotypes Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography, Intraoral Scanning by Computer-Aided Design, and Prosthetic-Driven Implant Planning Technology

BACKGROUND: Two clinical parameters, the gingival thickness (GT) and the width of keratinized tissue (WKT), describe the gingival phenotype, which is defined as the 3-dimensional volume of the gingiva. The periodontal phenotype additionally includes the thickness of the labial plate of the alveolar...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bednarz-Tumidajewicz, Magdalena, Sender-Janeczek, Aleksandra, Zborowski, Jacek, Gedrange, Tomasz, Konopka, Tomasz, Prylińska-Czyżewska, Agata, Dembowska, Elżbieta, Bednarz, Wojciech
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: International Scientific Literature, Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7574361/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33064673
http://dx.doi.org/10.12659/MSM.924469
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Two clinical parameters, the gingival thickness (GT) and the width of keratinized tissue (WKT), describe the gingival phenotype, which is defined as the 3-dimensional volume of the gingiva. The periodontal phenotype additionally includes the thickness of the labial plate of the alveolar crest (TLPAC). MATERIAL/METHODS: Thirty patients with healthy periodontium on the upper canines and incisors underwent measurements for crestal, supracrestal, free gingival thickness (FGT), the alveolar crest-gingival margin (AC-GM), alveolar crest-cementoenamel junction distance, and the TLPAC at 2, 4, and 8 mm apically from the edge of the alveolar crest using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) with computer-aided design and prosthetic-driven implant planning technology. For each tooth, the gingival and periodontal phenotype was evaluated on the basis of the gingival thickness, width of keratinized tissue (WKT), and TLPAC measurements. Each patient’s periodontal phenotype was evaluated according to the coronal width/length ratio of both the upper central incisors. RESULTS: The dentogingival units had varying average values for the 3 periodontal phenotypes (thin phenotype: FGT 0.65±0.06 mm, WKT 4.85±1.18 mm, AC-GM 3.17±0.64 mm, TLPAC2 0.66±0.28 mm; medium phenotype: FGT 0.87±0.07 mm, WKT 5.49±1.23 mm, AC-GM 3.36±0.65 mm, TLPAC2 0.76±0.37 mm; and thick phenotype: FGT 1.20 mm, WKT 6.00 mm, AC-GM 3.90 mm, TLPAC2 0.90 mm). Positive correlations were seen among WKT, FGT, AC-GM, and TLPAC2. CONCLUSIONS: Positive correlations between the FGT and WKT, and the AC-GM distance confirm that measurements using CBCT with computer-aided design and prosthetic-driven implant planning technology can evaluate the gingival phenotype and TLPAC2 for the periodontal phenotype.