Malmö University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Gingival Thickness Assessment at Mandibular Incisors of Orthodontic Patients with Ultrasound and Cone-beam CT: A Cross-sectional Study
Univ Bern, Sch Dent Med, Dept Orthodont & Dentofacial Orthoped, Bern, Switzerland.;251 Hellen Air Force & VA Gen Hosp, Dept Orthodont & Dentofacial Orthoped, Athens, Greece..
251 Hellen Air Force & VA Gen Hosp, Dept Orthodont & Dentofacial Orthoped, Athens, Greece..
251 Hellen Air Force & VA Gen Hosp, Dept Periodontol, Athens, Greece..
Univ Bern, Sch Dent Med, Dept Periodontol, Bern, Switzerland..
Show others and affiliations
2021 (English)In: Oral Health & Preventive Dentistry, ISSN 1602-1622, E-ISSN 1757-9996, Vol. 19, no 1, p. 263-270Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Quintessence , 2021. Vol. 19, no 1, p. 263-270
Keywords [en]
cone-beam CT, gingival phenotype, periodontal tissue, ultrasound
National Category
Dentistry
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-47249DOI: 10.3290/j.ohpd.b1248965ISI: 000712993600031PubMedID: 33881289Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85104750374OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mau-47249DiVA, id: diva2:1617574
Available from: 2021-12-07 Created: 2021-12-07 Last updated: 2024-02-05Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records

Stavropoulos, Andreas

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Stavropoulos, AndreasKatsaros, Christos
By organisation
Faculty of Odontology (OD)
In the same journal
Oral Health & Preventive Dentistry
Dentistry

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 28 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf