Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2016.46.6.372

New method of assessing the relationship between buccal bone thickness and gingival thickness  

Kim, Yun-Jeong (Department of Periodontology, Seoul National University Gwanak Dental Hospital)
Park, Ji-Man (Department of Prosthodontics, Seoul National University Gwanak Dental Hospital)
Kim, Sungtae (Department of Periodontology, Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University School of Dentistry)
Koo, Ki-Tae (Department of Periodontology, Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University School of Dentistry)
Seol, Yang-Jo (Department of Periodontology, Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University School of Dentistry)
Lee, Yong-Moo (Department of Periodontology, Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University School of Dentistry)
Rhyu, In-Chul (Department of Periodontology, Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University School of Dentistry)
Ku, Young (Department of Periodontology, Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University School of Dentistry)
Publication Information
Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science / v.46, no.6, 2016 , pp. 372-381 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between buccal bone thickness and gingival thickness by means of a noninvasive and relatively accurate digital registration method. Methods: In 20 periodontally healthy subjects, cone-beam computed tomographic images and intraoral scanned files were obtained. Measurements of buccal bone thickness and gingival thickness at the central incisors, lateral incisors, and canines were performed at points 0-5 mm from the alveolar crest on the superimposed images. The Friedman test was used to compare buccal bone and gingival thickness for each depth between the 3 tooth types. Spearman's correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the correlation between buccal bone thickness and gingival thickness. Results: Of the central incisors, 77% of all sites had a buccal thickness of 0.5-1.0 mm, and 23% had a thickness of 1.0-1.5 mm. Of the lateral incisors, 71% of sites demonstrated a buccal bone thickness <1.0 mm, as did 63% of the canine sites. For gingival thickness, the proportion of sites <1.0 mm was 88%, 82%, and 91% for the central incisors, lateral incisors, and canines, respectively. Significant differences were observed in gingival thickness at the alveolar crest level (G0) between the central incisors and canines (P=0.032) and between the central incisors and lateral incisors (P=0.013). At 1 mm inferior to the alveolar crest, a difference was found between the central incisors and canines (P=0.025). The lateral incisors and canines showed a significant difference for buccal bone thickness 5 mm under the alveolar crest (P=0.025). Conclusions: The gingiva and buccal bone of the anterior maxillary teeth were found to be relatively thin (<1 mm) overall. A tendency was found for gingival thickness to increase and bone thickness to decrease toward the root apex. Differences were found between teeth at some positions, although the correlation between buccal bone thickness and soft tissue thickness was generally not significant.
Keywords
Cone-beam computed tomography; Gingiva; Maxilla; Computer-assisted radiographic image interpretation;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Claffey N, Shanley D. Relationship of gingival thickness and bleeding to loss of probing attachment in shallow sites following nonsurgical periodontal therapy. J Clin Periodontol 1986;13:654-7.   DOI
2 La Rocca AP, Alemany AS, Levi P Jr, Juan MV, Molina JN, Weisgold AS. Anterior maxillary and mandibular biotype: relationship between gingival thickness and width with respect to underlying bone thickness. Implant Dent 2012;21:507-15.   DOI
3 Younes F, Eghbali A, Raes M, De Bruyckere T, Cosyn J, De Bruyn H. Relationship between buccal bone and gingival thickness revisited using non-invasive registration methods. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:523-8.
4 Sanz Martin I, Benic GI, Hammerle CH, Thoma DS. Prospective randomized controlled clinical study comparing two dental implant types: volumetric soft tissue changes at 1 year of loading. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:406-11.
5 Windisch SI, Jung RE, Sailer I, Studer SP, Ender A, Hammerle CH. A new optical method to evaluate three-dimensional volume changes of alveolar contours: a methodological in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:545-51.   DOI
6 Nikiforidou M, Tsalikis L, Angelopoulos C, Menexes G, Vouros I, Konstantinides A. Classification of periodontal biotypes with the use of CBCT. A cross-sectional study. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20:2061-71.   DOI
7 Nowzari H, Molayem S, Chiu CH, Rich SK. Cone beam computed tomographic measurement of maxillary central incisors to determine prevalence of facial alveolar bone width ${\geq}2$ mm. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14:595-602.   DOI
8 Muller HP, Schaller N, Eger T, Heinecke A. Thickness of masticatory mucosa. J Clin Periodontol 2000;27:431-6.   DOI
9 Olsson M, Lindhe J. Periodontal characteristics in individuals with varying form of the upper central incisors. J Clin Periodontol 1991;18:78-82.   DOI
10 Weisgold AS. Contours of the full crown restoration. Alpha Omegan 1977;70:77-89.
11 Evans CD, Chen ST. Esthetic outcomes of immediate implant placements. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:73-80.
12 Kois JC. Predictable single-tooth peri-implant esthetics: five diagnostic keys. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2004;25:895-6, 898, 900 passim.
13 Hwang D, Wang HL. Flap thickness as a predictor of root coverage: a systematic review. J Periodontol 2006;77:1625-34.   DOI
14 Baldi C, Pini-Prato G, Pagliaro U, Nieri M, Saletta D, Muzzi L, et al. Coronally advanced flap procedure for root coverage. Is flap thickness a relevant predictor to achieve root coverage? A 19-case series. J Periodontol 1999;70:1077-84.   DOI
15 Fu JH, Yeh CY, Chan HL, Tatarakis N, Leong DJ, Wang HL. Tissue biotype and its relation to the underlying bone morphology. J Periodontol 2010;81:569-74.   DOI
16 Stein JM, Lintel-Hoping N, Hammacher C, Kasaj A, Tamm M, Hanisch O. The gingival biotype: measurement of soft and hard tissue dimensions - a radiographic morphometric study. J Clin Periodontol 2013;40:1132-9.   DOI
17 Botticelli D, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Hard-tissue alterations following immediate implant placement in extraction sites. J Clin Periodontol 2004;31:820-8.   DOI
18 Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Umezu K, Kois JC. Dimensions of peri-implant mucosa: an evaluation of maxillary anterior single implants in humans. J Periodontol 2003;74:557-62.   DOI
19 Lee SL, Kim HJ, Son MK, Chung CH. Anthropometric analysis of maxillary anterior buccal bone of Korean adults using cone-beam CT. J Adv Prosthodont 2010;2:92-6.   DOI
20 Januario AL, Duarte WR, Barriviera M, Mesti JC, Araujo MG, Lindhe J. Dimension of the facial bone wall in the anterior maxilla: a cone-beam computed tomography study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:1168-71.   DOI
21 De Rouck T, Eghbali R, Collys K, De Bruyn H, Cosyn J. The gingival biotype revisited: transparency of the periodontal probe through the gingival margin as a method to discriminate thin from thick gingiva. J Clin Periodontol 2009;36:428-33.   DOI
22 Kan JY, Morimoto T, Rungcharassaeng K, Roe P, Smith DH. Gingival biotype assessment in the esthetic zone: visual versus direct measurement. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2010;30:237-43.