Thickness of masticatory mucosa strongly depends on gender and the periodontal phenotype.

The objectives of the present study were (I) to determine the validity and reliability of measuring gingival thickness (GTH) with a recently developed, commercially available ultrasonic device; (II) to measure GTH in relation to tooth type and age of proband; (III) to correlate GTH with varying forms of premolars, canines and incisors. Ultrasonic measurements were performed in 200 periodontally healthy, male probands representing 3 different age groups (20-25, 40-45, 55-60 years). In the maxilla, mean GTH varied between 0.9 mm (canines, 1st molars) and 1.3 mm (2nd molars). In the mandible respective mean values ranged between 0.8 mm (canines) and 1.5 mm (2nd molars). No differences in means and standard deviations (0.36-0.39 mm) were observed in different age groups. In order to correlate GTH with other clinical parameters and form of tooth, in 42 probands of the youngest age group, presenting with no attrition or abrasion, no artificial crown restorations and (following prophylaxis) no overt gingivitis and no periodontal probing depth in excess of 3 mm, detailed clinical measurements and stone model cast analyses were performed. By stepwise multiple linear regression analysis, 24% (p < 0.0001) of the variation of GTH was explained by probing depth, recession, width of gingiva and tooth type. The ratio of the width of the crown to its length was not included into the model. When performing analysis of covariance with the subject as factor, the model was improved, now explaining 41% of the variation of GTH. In this model, the influence of periodontal probing depth was decreased, and recession was not included. It was concluded that there are individual differences in GTH (i.e., different biotypes). However, thickness mainly depends on tooth type and is correlated with width of gingiva. There appears to be no association with shape and form of the tooth. Validity and reliability of measuring GTH with the ultrasonic device was found to be excellent.

Considerable intra- as well as interindividual variation of thickness of masticatory mucosa could be observed. According to differences in thickness of facial and interdental gingiva, it appears that lining is also an important function of the gingiva in reducing and smoothing the pronounced convexities of the dentoalveolar, i.e., skeletal, complex.

In a previous study on 42 young adult, periodontally healthy subjects without any attrition, abrasion or crown restoration, gingival thickness (GTH) was determined at facial aspects of premolars, canines and incisors by a novel ultrasonic device. GTH strongly depended on periodontal probing depth, width of gingiva (WG), and tooth type. Whereas the ratio of crown width to its length (CW/CL) was not identified as an explanatory variable, a significant influence of the subject was ascertained. The aim of the present study was to extend these analyses in order to identify subjects with different morphological characteristics of gingiva, i.e., gingival phenotypes. When employing cluster analysis on standardized parameters mean GTH, WG and CW/CL of upper canines, lateral and central incisors, 3 clusters were identified. Cluster A comprised 2/3 of subjects, displaying "normal" GTH, WG and CW/CL. Cluster B (n = 9, 21%) had a significantly thicker and wider gingiva, and a more quadratic form of upper front teeth. A 3rd cluster (cluster C, n = 5, 12%) was identified showing "normal" GTH, high CW/CL, but a narrow zone of keratinized tissue. Some characteristics of gingival phenotype of the upper front tooth region were also found at upper premolars (WG, CW/CL) but in general not at mandibular teeth. Present results clearly indicate evidence for the existence of different gingival phenotypes. Clinical relevance of these observations has to be tested in longitudinal studies.

No abstract