Article Sidebar
Views pdf: 33
PERIODONTAL PHENOTYPE OF MAXILARY ANTERIOR AND PREMOLAR TEETH IN PEOPLE AGED 18 – 25
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objectives: To describe and compare the keratinized tissue width (KTW), gingival thickness (GT), and bone thickness (BT) in the maxillary anterior and premolar teeth of individuals aged 18 to 25. Methods: The study involved 121 participants aged 18 to 25, all with healthy periodontal tissue in the maxillary anterior and premolar teeth. Clinical examination and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) were performed. Gingival thickness (GT) and bone thickness (BT) were measured using CBCT outcomes, while keratinized tissue width (KTW) was assessed clinically. Statistical tests were performed to find differences in KTW, GT, and BT between teeth groups. Results: The average age was 21.8 years, with 51.2% of males. For the central incisors, lateral incisors, canines, first premolars, and second premolars, KTW was 5.53 ± 1.34 mm, 5.81 ± 1.45 mm, 4.97 ± 1.42 mm, 3.65 ± 1.13 mm, and 4.25 ± 1.34 mm, respectively. GT was 1.56 ± 0.29 mm, 1.35 ± 0.25 mm, 1.30 ± 0.30 mm, 1.60 ± 0.32 mm, and 1.87 ± 0.42 mm, respectively, while BT was 1.03 ± 0.23 mm, 1.01 ± 0.22 mm, 1.06 ± 0.31 mm, 1.20 ± 0.36 mm, and 1.49 ± 0.44 mm, respectively. KTW was highest in lateral incisors and lowest in first premolars (p < 0.05). GT in the lateral incisors and canines was significantly thinner compared to other teeth groups (p < 0.05), and BT was significantly higher in the premolars compared to the anterior teeth (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Significant differences in KTW, GT, and BT were observed between the anterior and premolar groups. Lateral incisors and canines predominantly had thin gingival thickness (GT < 1.5 mm). The majority of central incisors, lateral incisors, and canines exhibited BT ≤ 1 mm.
Article Details
Keywords
Periodontal phenotype, keratinized tissue width, gingival thickness, bone thickness.
References
2. Kim DM, Bassir SH, Nguyen TT. Effect of gingival phenotype on the maintenance of periodontal health: An American Academy of Periodontology best evidence review. Journal of periodontology. 2020;91(3):311-338.
3. Jepsen S, Caton JG, Albandar JM, et al. Periodontal manifestations of systemic diseases and developmental and acquired conditions: Consensus report of workgroup 3 of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions. J Periodontol. Jun 2018;89 Suppl 1:S237-S248. doi:10.1002/JPER.17-0733
4. Malpartida-Carrillo V, Tinedo-Lopez PL, Guerrero ME, Amaya-Pajares SP, Ozcan M, Rosing CK. Periodontal phenotype: A review of historical and current classifications evaluating different methods and characteristics. J Esthet Restor Dent. Apr 2021;33(3):432-445. doi:10.1111/ jerd.12661
5. Lee WZ, Ong MM, Yeo ABK. Gingival profiles in a select Asian cohort: A pilot study. Journal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistry. 2018; 9(1):e12269.
6. Claffey N, Shanley D. Relationship of gingival thickness and bleeding to loss of probing attachment in shallow sites following nonsurgical periodontal therapy. Journal of clinical periodontology. 1986;13(7):654-657.
7. Infante L. Facial gingival tissue stability following immediate placement and provisionalization of maxillary anterior single implants: a 2-to 8-year follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011;26(1):179-87.
8. Jung RE, Sailer I, Hammerle C, Attin T, Schmidlin P. In vitro color changes of soft tissues caused by restorative materials. International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry. 2007;27(3):251.
9. Nowzari H, Molayem S, Chiu CHK, Rich SK. Cone beam computed tomographic measurement of maxillary central incisors to determine prevalence of facial alveolar bone width≥ 2 mm. Clinical implant dentistry and related research. 2012;14(4):595-602.