Gingival Thickness Assessment at Mandibular Incisors of Orthodontic Patients with Ultrasound and Cone-beam CT. A Cross-sectional Study

被引:9
作者
Kloukos, Dimitrios [1 ,2 ]
Kakali, Lydia [2 ]
Koukos, George [3 ]
Sculean, Anton [4 ]
Stavropoulos, Andreas [5 ,6 ]
Katsaros, Christos [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Bern, Sch Dent Med, Dept Orthodont & Dentofacial Orthoped, Bern, Switzerland
[2] 251 Hellen Air Force & VA Gen Hosp, Dept Orthodont & Dentofacial Orthoped, Athens, Greece
[3] 251 Hellen Air Force & VA Gen Hosp, Dept Periodontol, Athens, Greece
[4] Univ Bern, Sch Dent Med, Dept Periodontol, Bern, Switzerland
[5] Malmo Univ, Dept Periodontol, Fac Odontol, Malmo, Sweden
[6] Univ Geneva, Div Regenerat Dent Med & Periodontol, CUMD, Geneva, Switzerland
关键词
cone-beam CT; gingival phenotype; periodontal tissue; ultrasound; COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY; PERIODONTAL BIOTYPE; IMPLANT DENTISTRY; TISSUE BIOTYPE; FLAP THICKNESS; ROOT COVERAGE; DIMENSIONS; MAXILLARY; REGION; PREDICTOR;
D O I
10.3290/j.ohpd.b1248965
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Purpose: To use and evaluate two methods for measuring gingival thickness (GT) at mandibular incisors of orthodontic patients and compare their performance in assessing periodontal anatomy through soft tissue thickness. Materials and Methods: The sample consisted of 40 consecutive adult orthodontic patients. GT was measured just before bracket placement at both central mandibular incisors, mid-facially on the buccal aspect, 2 mm apically to the free gingival margin with two methods: clinically with an ultrasound device (USD) and radiographically with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Results: CBCT measurements were consistently higher than USD measurements, with the difference ranging from 0.13 mm to 0.21 mm. No statistically significant difference was noted between the repeated CBCT measurements at the right central incisor (bias = 0.05 mm; 95% CI =-0.01, 0.11; p = 0.104). Although the respective results for the left incisor statistically indicated that the measurements were not exactly replicated, the magnitude of the point estimate was small and not clinically significant (bias = 0.06 mm; 95% CI = 0.01, 0.11; p = 0.014). Small differences between CBCT measurements made by the 2 examiners at the left central incisor (bias = 0.06 mm; 95% CI = 0.01, 0.11; p = 0.014) were detected. However, this difference was minor and also not clinically significant. The respective analysis on the right incisor showed no statistically significant difference (bias = 0.05 mm; 95% CI =-0.01, 0.11; p = 0.246). Conclusions: Based on reproducibility, CBCT imaging for gingival thickness assessment proved to be as reliable as ultrasound determination. However, CBCT consistently yielded higher values, albeit at a marginal level, than did the ultrasound device.
引用
收藏
页码:263 / 270
页数:8
相关论文
共 37 条
[1]   Assessment of gingival biotype and facial hard/soft tissue dimensions in the maxillary anterior teeth region using cone beam computed tomography [J].
Amid, Reza ;
Mirakhori, Mandieh ;
Safi, Yaser ;
Kadkhodazadeh, Mandi ;
Namdari, Mahshid .
ARCHIVES OF ORAL BIOLOGY, 2017, 79 :1-6
[2]   GINGIVA THICKNESS IN GUIDED TISSUE REGENERATION AND ASSOCIATED RECESSION AT FACIAL FURCATION DEFECTS [J].
ANDEREGG, CR ;
METZLER, DG ;
NICOLL, BK .
JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY, 1995, 66 (05) :397-402
[3]   Coronally advanced flap procedure for root coverage. Is flap thickness a relevant predictor to achieve root coverage? A 19-case series [J].
Baldi, C ;
Pini-Prato, G ;
Pagliaro, U ;
Nieri, M ;
Saletta, D ;
Muzzi, L ;
Cortellini, P .
JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY, 1999, 70 (09) :1077-1084
[4]   Use of Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Implant Dentistry: The International Congress of Oral Implantologists Consensus Report [J].
Benavides, Erika ;
Rios, Hector F. ;
Ganz, Scott D. ;
An, Chang-Hyeon ;
Resnik, Randolph ;
Reardon, Gayle Tieszen ;
Feldman, Steven J. ;
Mah, James K. ;
Hatcher, David ;
Kim, Myung-Jin ;
Sohn, Dong-Seok ;
Palti, Ady ;
Perel, Morton L. ;
Judy, Kenneth W. M. ;
Misch, Carl E. ;
Wang, Hom-Lay .
IMPLANT DENTISTRY, 2012, 21 (02) :78-86
[5]   Applying the right statistics: analyses of measurement studies [J].
Bland, JM ;
Altman, DG .
ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2003, 22 (01) :85-93
[6]  
Bland JM, 1999, STAT METHODS MED RES, V8, P135, DOI 10.1177/096228029900800204
[7]  
Boke Fatma, 2014, Eur J Dent, V8, P373, DOI 10.4103/1305-7456.137651
[8]  
Borges Germana Jayme, 2015, ScientificWorldJournal, V2015, P142108, DOI 10.1155/2015/142108
[9]  
Cesur E., 2019, BRAZ J OTORHINOLAR, VS1808-8694, P30057
[10]  
Cook DR, 2011, INT J PERIODONT REST, V31, P345