Identification of thin and thick gingival phenotypes by two transparency methods: A diagnostic accuracy study

Abstract

Background: There is limited information on the diagnostic accuracy of the transparency method to diagnose gingival phenotypes taking into consideration not only the gingival thickness (GT) but also the keratinized tissue width (KTW).Thus, the aim of the present study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of two transparency methods using a conventional steel probe (SP) and a plastic color-coded probe (CCP) to identify thin and thick gingival phenotypes.Methods: Maxillary anterior teeth (n = 300) of 50 individuals were included in this study. The GT was measured via transgingival assessment at 2 mm apical to the gingival margin. Tooth sites were subdivided into thin or thick phenotypes according to the corresponding GT, respectively, ≤1 mm and >1 mm. SP and CCP were used to determine the gingival phenotype by the transparency method. The KTW was also evaluated. The diagnostic accuracy of the experimental periodontal probes to identify the thin and thick gingival phenotypes were compared. Results: Of 300 gingival sites evaluated, 57% (n = 172) were identified as thin (GT: 0.82 ± 0.12 mm, KTW: 4 ± 1.2 mm) and 43% (n = 128) as thick phenotypes (GT: 1.16 ± 0.12 mm, KTW: 4.3 ± 1.3 mm) by the transgingival method. The SP and CCP were very sensitive (>0.94) to identify the thin phenotype, however, less specific (0.35-0.39) to diagnose thick phenotype. The diagnostic accuracy for the SP and CCP was similar, 0.69 and 0.70, respectively. Conclusion:The steel and color-coded plastic probe were equally effective in identifying thin gingival phenotype at maxillary anterior tooth sites.

The gingival phenotypes and related clinical periodontal parameters in a cohort of Pakistani young adults

“…A comprehensive survey of the literature showed, to date, there are 15 studies similar to ours on the gingival phenotype prevalence assessment from various geographic locales [ [11] , [12] , [13] , 23 , 24 , [29] , [30] , [31] , [32] , [33] , [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] , [38] ] ( Table 4 ). Only one of these used an ultrasonic device, and another four used transgingival probing, whilst the remaining ten studies used probe visibility method which we utilized here.…”

“… Reference Number of Subjects Country Study Design Thick Gingiva % Thin Gingiva % Assessment Method Current Study 510 Pakistan Cross-sectional 76 % 24 % Probe visibility Y. Shao et al [ 29 ] 31 China Cross-sectional 59.68 % 40.32 % Probe visibility, Transginigval probing, CBCT Y. Zhang et al [ 30 ] 167 China Cross-sectional 53 % 47 % Probe visibility F.A. da Costa et al [ 31 ] 50 Brazil Cross-sectional 43 % 57 % Probe visibility A. Joshi et al [ 24 ] 800 India Cross-sectional 45.8 % 54.1 % Probe visibility A. Peixoto et al [ 32 ] 50 Portuguese Cross-sectional 56 % 30 % Probe visibility O. Alkan et al [ 33 ] 181 Turkey Cross-sectional 70.2 % 29.8 % Transginigival probing ...…”

Comparison of Chu's Probe Method with the Actual Dimension of Maxillary Anterior Teeth and Evaluation of Gingival Parameters in Individuals Who Do Not Need Orthodontic Treatment: Methodological Study

“…Gingival thickness (GT) was categorized as thin or thick according to the visibility of the probe. [20][21][22] All parameters were recorded using a UNC-15 periodontal probe (Hu-Friedy, USA). Based on these values, each patient's need for gingivectomy or crown lengthening with resective bone surgery was assessed.…”