Open AccessGingival biotype - comparative analysis of different evaluation methods
Author(s) -
Filip Djordjevic,
Dejan Dubovina,
Marija Bubalo,
Rasa Radosavljevic,
Zoran Bukumirić
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
vojnosanitetski pregled
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.123
H-Index - 19
eISSN - 2406-0720
pISSN - 0042-8450
DOI - 10.2298/vsp210318056d
Subject(s) - gingival recession , periodontal probe , medicine , dentistry , gingival and periodontal pocket , bleeding on probing , orthodontics , periodontal examination , gold standard (test) , periodontitis , radiology
Background/Aim. Gingival biotype can have a significant impact on the outcome of the periodontal therapeutic procedures and on the predictability of their aesthetic outcome. There is a strong correlation between the types of biotype and the potential gingival recession after restorative, periodontal and implant surgical procedures. Therefore, accurate identification of gingival biotypes, before initiating these procedures, is one of the significant predictive factors for their success. The aim of this study was to evaluate reliability of accurate gingival biotype determination with the use of visual method, periodontal and trans-gingival probing compared to the direct measurement method. Methods. This prospective study involved 33 patients indicated for the apical root resection in the intercanine sector of the upper jaw. Gingival biotype identification was performed in all of the patients using the following techniques: 1) visual method; 2) periodontal probe technique; 3) trans-gingival probing; 4) direct measurement after flap elevation was performed. Statistical analysis of the obtained data was performed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the visual method, periodontal probing method and trans-gingival probing method, in relation to the direct measurement method, used as a gold standard, to discriminate the gingival thickness biotype (thin versus thick). Results. The overall accuracy of the tested diagnostic procedures, compared to direct gingival biotype measurement, was: 66.7% for visual method; 78.8% for periodontal probing; and 97.0% for trans-mucosal probing. Conclusion. Periodontal probing method can be recommended for gingival biotype determination as a routine method, due to the fact that its sensitivity and overall accuracy is higher compared to the visual method. The trans-gingival method, in terms of sensitivity and comprehensive accuracy, almost completely coincides with the direct method, but it is more invasive compared to periodontal probing method and it has to be conducted in local anesthesia.