Ultrasonic determination of thickness of masticatory mucosa: A methodologic study

Müller, Hans‐Peter; Schaller, Nils; Eger, Thomas

doi:10.1016/s1079-2104(99)70123-x

Cited by 103 publications

(141 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

123

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The success of surgical procedures in periodontology often depends on the thickness of the soft tissue present, 47 as well as the thickness of the donor site when grafting connective tissues. 48 Furthermore, the width of the free gingival margin is directly related to more frequent and more severe recessions, 49 and gingival problems occur generally more often in individuals with a thin gingival biotype.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of linear intraoral measurements using cone beam CT and multidetector CT: a tale of two CTs

Patcas

Markic

Müller

et al. 2012

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:The aim was to compare the accuracy of linear bone measurements of cone beam CT (CBCT) with multidetector CT (MDCT) and validate intraoral soft-tissue measurements in CBCT. Methods: Comparable views of CBCT and MDCT were obtained from eight intact cadaveric heads. The anatomical positions of the gingival margin and the buccal alveolar bone ridge were determined. Image measurements (CBCT/MDCT) were performed upon multiplanar reformatted data sets and compared with the anatomical measurements; the number of non-assessable sites (NASs) was evaluated. Results: Radiological measurements were accurate with a mean difference from anatomical measurements of 0.14 mm (CBCT) and 0.23 mm (MDCT). These differences were statistically not significant, but the limits of agreement for bone measurements were broader in MDCT (21.35 mm; 1.82 mm) than in CBCT (20.93 mm; 1.21 mm). The limits of agreement for softtissue measurements in CBCT were smaller (20.77 mm; 1.07 mm), indicating a slightly higher accuracy. More NASs occurred in MDCT (14.5%) than in CBCT (8.3%). Conclusions: CBCT is slightly more reliable for linear measurements than MDCT and less affected by metal artefacts. CBCT accuracy of linear intraoral soft-tissue measurements is similar to the accuracy of bone measurements.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of linear intraoral measurements using cone beam CT and multidetector CT: a tale of two CTs

Patcas

Markic

Müller

et al. 2012

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…26 Therefore, areas that are difficult to access with the sensor, such as the midpalatal area, the retromolar pad, and the maxillary tuberosity where the third molars could be located under the soft tissue, were excluded in this study. These areas also have considerable variation in soft-tissue thickness.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…20,21 Finally, there is direct measurement using an ultrasonic device such as an ultrasonic gingival-thickness meter (SDM, KRUPP Corporation, Essen, Germany; Figure 1), which has excellent convenience, repeatability, reliability, and accuracy. [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] The SDM ultrasonic gingival-thickness meter works by measuring the time between when an ultrasonic wave is emitted and when it has passed through the oral mucosa and is reflected back from the bone surface. The meter's monitor displays the soft-tissue thickness.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Soft Tissue Thickness for Placement of an Orthodontic Miniscrew Using an Ultrasonic Device

Cha¹,

Lee²,

Lee³

et al. 2008

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To evaluate area-and gender-related differences in the soft tissue thickness of potential areas for installing miniscrews in the buccal-attached gingiva and the palatal masticatory mucosa. Materials and Methods:The sample consisted of 61 Korean young adults. An ultrasonic gingivalthickness meter was used to measure the soft-tissue thickness in the buccal-attached gingiva just adjacent to the mucogingival junction of the upper and lower arches and 4 mm and 8 mm below the gingival crest in the palatal masticatory mucosa. Independent t-test, paired t-test, and oneway analysis of variance were used for statistical analysis. Results: Buccal-attached gingiva thickness in the upper arch was significantly greater in men than in women, but buccal-attached gingiva thickness in the lower arch and palatal masticatory mucosa thickness 4 and 8 mm below the gingival crest did not show gender differences. Significantly thicker soft tissue occurred in the anterior areas in the upper arch and in the posterior areas in the lower arch. In the palatal masticatory mucosa, significantly thicker soft tissue was found 4 mm below the gingival crest in the anterior areas and 8 mm below the gingival crest in the posterior areas. The areas between the canines and the premolars showed higher values than other areas 4 mm below the gingival crest. However, the soft-tissue thickness 8 mm below the gingival crest showed a progressive increase from the anterior to the posterior areas. Conclusion: Measurements of the soft-tissue thickness using an ultrasonic device could help practitioners select the proper orthodontic miniscrew in daily clinical practice.

show abstract

“…This was followed by Lytle et al who measure the thickness on models of tissues with dentures in function for 60 hours [15]. In addition, other methods included physical invasive methods that used periodontal probes and needles under local anesthesia as well as ultrasonic devices [16,17]. Finally, in 2003 Compagnoni et al [18] used a kinesographic instrument to determine denture movement and thus mucosal thickness [18].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Mucosal Displacement and Denture Settlement for Direct Vs. Indirect Attachment Incorporation in Implant Assisted Mandibular Overdentures

Abdelhamid¹

2016

JDHODT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: One of the attachments used nowadays are the stud Positioner attachments, these attachments can be incorporated in the denture base of the implant assisted overdenture directly inside the patients mouth or indirectly in the laboratory. No studies evaluated the difference in denture-tissue relation in overdentures with attachments incorporation directly or indirectly. Therefore the aim of the present study was to evaluate whether a difference in denture-tissue relation exists between direct or indirect attachment incorporation. Two implants were placed for 7 patients and then an implant assisted overdenture was fabricated, first with indirect attachment incorporation, then with direct attachment incorporation. CBCT scans were performed on the patients with the overdentures in place after 1 week of denture insertion. The area of the mucosa between the fitting surface of the denture and the bone was measured as a guide for denture-tissue relation. Results:The mean anterior mucosal surface area in dentures constructed using indirect attachment incorporation was 21.07mm 2 ± 4.89 while the surface area at point M in dentures constructed by direct attachment incorporation was 20.53mm 2 ± 5.14. While the mean posterior mucosal surface area in dentures constructed using indirect attachment incorporation was 35.88mm 2 ± 3.98 while the mean posterior mucosal surface area in dentures constructed by direct attachment incorporation was 34.22mm 2 ± 3.72. Conclusion:Direct attachment incorporation causes greater posterior denture settling than indirect attachment incorporation.

show abstract

Ultrasonic determination of thickness of masticatory mucosa: A methodologic study

Cited by 103 publications

References 21 publications

Accuracy of linear intraoral measurements using cone beam CT and multidetector CT: a tale of two CTs

Accuracy of linear intraoral measurements using cone beam CT and multidetector CT: a tale of two CTs

Soft Tissue Thickness for Placement of an Orthodontic Miniscrew Using an Ultrasonic Device

Evaluation of Mucosal Displacement and Denture Settlement for Direct Vs. Indirect Attachment Incorporation in Implant Assisted Mandibular Overdentures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About