IADR Abstract Archives
Gingival Biotypes and Soft Tissue Characteristics Surrounding Upper Anterior Protrusion
Objectives: To compare the labial soft tissue characteristics surrounding upper anterior teeth protrusion between thick and thin gingival biotypes patients.
Methods: This study was approved by institutional Ethics committee, Faculty of Dentistry, Prince of Songkla University. 40 periodontally healthy patients with diagnosed as Class I malocclusion with upper anterior teeth protrusion (Upper incisors to NA distance > 8 mm) were recruited in this study. All participants were categorized into thick and thin gingival biotypes according to the transparency of periodontal probe: 18 thick and 22 thin gingival biotypes participants. The clinical measurements were including keratinized gingival width (distance from gingival margin to the mucogingival junction) and gingival recession (distance from the cementogingival junction to gingival margin). The labial gingival thickness was measured by using Cone beam computed tomography (Veraviewepocs J Morita MPG, Fushimi-ku, Kyoto, Japan). The intraclass correlation coefficient was showed in Table 1. The difference of labial gingival thickness, gingival recession, and keratinized gingival width between both groups were analyzed using independent T-test (P<0.05) (SPSS version 17, Chicago, Ill).
Results: All participants showed no pocket formation (average pocket depth = 2.27 ± 0.48), no signs of inflammation ( average gingival index = 0.38 ± 0.49) and well-controlled oral hygiene (average plaque index = 0.25 ± 0.43). Thick gingival biotype patients presented thicker labial gingival thickness, wider keratinized gingiva and less gingival recession than thin gingival biotype patients. Gingival recession with less amount of keratinized gingival width was commonly found in upper canine. The average and standard deviation of soft tissue characteristics were shown in Table 2.
Conclusions: The patients with upper anterior teeth protrusion presented either thick or thin gingival biotypes. Thick gingival biotype presented thicker labial gingival thickness, wider keratinized gingiva and less gingival recession than thin gingival biotype.
Methods: This study was approved by institutional Ethics committee, Faculty of Dentistry, Prince of Songkla University. 40 periodontally healthy patients with diagnosed as Class I malocclusion with upper anterior teeth protrusion (Upper incisors to NA distance > 8 mm) were recruited in this study. All participants were categorized into thick and thin gingival biotypes according to the transparency of periodontal probe: 18 thick and 22 thin gingival biotypes participants. The clinical measurements were including keratinized gingival width (distance from gingival margin to the mucogingival junction) and gingival recession (distance from the cementogingival junction to gingival margin). The labial gingival thickness was measured by using Cone beam computed tomography (Veraviewepocs J Morita MPG, Fushimi-ku, Kyoto, Japan). The intraclass correlation coefficient was showed in Table 1. The difference of labial gingival thickness, gingival recession, and keratinized gingival width between both groups were analyzed using independent T-test (P<0.05) (SPSS version 17, Chicago, Ill).
Results: All participants showed no pocket formation (average pocket depth = 2.27 ± 0.48), no signs of inflammation ( average gingival index = 0.38 ± 0.49) and well-controlled oral hygiene (average plaque index = 0.25 ± 0.43). Thick gingival biotype patients presented thicker labial gingival thickness, wider keratinized gingiva and less gingival recession than thin gingival biotype patients. Gingival recession with less amount of keratinized gingival width was commonly found in upper canine. The average and standard deviation of soft tissue characteristics were shown in Table 2.
Conclusions: The patients with upper anterior teeth protrusion presented either thick or thin gingival biotypes. Thick gingival biotype presented thicker labial gingival thickness, wider keratinized gingiva and less gingival recession than thin gingival biotype.
3176419_File000000.jpg