Volume 10, Issue 3 (9-2025)
J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2025, 10(3): 192-202 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: IECVDC/23/PG01/PI/IVV/96
Clinical trials code: CTRI/2023/10/058208
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Gottumukkala S, chittabathina P, S Penmetsa G, Satyanarayana Raju M, Ramesh K, Kumar M, et al . Correlation between 3-Dimensional Volumetric Digital Analysis and Direct Technique for Periodontal Phenotype Assessment. J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2025; 10 (3) :192-202
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-693-en.html
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-693-en.html
Sruthima Gottumukkala *1 
, Poornima Chittabathina2 , Gautami S Penmetsa2 , M Satyanarayana Raju3 , KSV Ramesh2 , Mohan Kumar2 , Anil Kumar2 , Murali Krishna4
, Poornima Chittabathina2 , Gautami S Penmetsa2 , M Satyanarayana Raju3 , KSV Ramesh2 , Mohan Kumar2 , Anil Kumar2 , Murali Krishna4
1- Department of Periodontics and Implantology, Vishnu Dental College , sruthima@gmail.com
2- Department of Periodontics and Implantology, Vishnu Dental College
3- Department of Prosthodontics and Implantology, Vishnu Dental College
4- Kumar
2- Department of Periodontics and Implantology, Vishnu Dental College
3- Department of Prosthodontics and Implantology, Vishnu Dental College
4- Kumar
Abstract: (10 Views)
Background and Aim: Several methods have been used to evaluate gingival thickness (GT); the most often used is the direct technique (DT), which is invasive. Thus, it is necessary to find a novel, reliable, and non-invasive approach for this purpose. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of assessment of periodontal phenotype using 3-dimensional digital analysis (digital technique) in comparison with the DT.
Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study included 30 periodontally healthy participants between 20 and 25 years. One calibrated examiner performed all the measurements. GT and bone thickness (BT) were evaluated at 2 mm (GT2, BT2) and 4 mm (GT4, BT4) apical to the alveolar bone crest around 6 teeth i.e., one molar, one premolar and one incisor in each arch. In the DT, transgingival probing was performed using an endodontic file and a digital vernier caliper. In the digital technique, the DICOM data of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and stereolithography (STL) data were superimposed to perform a digital analysis. Statistical analyses were conducted using the Student's t-test and Pearson’s correlation coefficient (alpha=0.05).
Results: Tooth-wise comparison of GT2, GT4, BT2, and BT4 measurements between the DT and digital technique groups showed very high correlation (r=0.86) for all the included teeth. The GT and BT measurements also showed very high correlation (r>0.8) between the two techniques.
Conclusion: The results showed that digital measurement with STL-DICOM file superimposition was a reliable and reproducible technique comparable to the DT with an endodontic file.
Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study included 30 periodontally healthy participants between 20 and 25 years. One calibrated examiner performed all the measurements. GT and bone thickness (BT) were evaluated at 2 mm (GT2, BT2) and 4 mm (GT4, BT4) apical to the alveolar bone crest around 6 teeth i.e., one molar, one premolar and one incisor in each arch. In the DT, transgingival probing was performed using an endodontic file and a digital vernier caliper. In the digital technique, the DICOM data of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and stereolithography (STL) data were superimposed to perform a digital analysis. Statistical analyses were conducted using the Student's t-test and Pearson’s correlation coefficient (alpha=0.05).
Results: Tooth-wise comparison of GT2, GT4, BT2, and BT4 measurements between the DT and digital technique groups showed very high correlation (r=0.86) for all the included teeth. The GT and BT measurements also showed very high correlation (r>0.8) between the two techniques.
Conclusion: The results showed that digital measurement with STL-DICOM file superimposition was a reliable and reproducible technique comparable to the DT with an endodontic file.
Type of Study: Original article |
Subject:
Periodontology
References
1. Malpartida-Carrillo V, Tinedo-Lopez PL, Guerrero ME, Amaya-Pajares SP, Özcan M, Rösing CK. Periodontal phenotype: A review of historical and current classifications evaluating different methods and characteristics. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2021 Apr;33(3):432-45. [DOI:10.1111/jerd.12661] [PMID]
2. Olsson M, Lindhe J. Periodontal characteristics in individuals with varying form of the upper central incisors. J Clin Periodontol. 1991 Jan;18(1):78-82. [DOI:10.1111/j.1600-051X.1991.tb01124.x] [PMID]
3. Jepsen S, Caton JG, Albandar JM, Bissada NF, Bouchard P, Cortellini P, 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 Clin Periodontol. 2018 Jun;45.
4. 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 Apr;81(4):569-74. [DOI:10.1902/jop.2009.090591] [PMID]
5. Hwang D, Wang HL. Flap thickness as a predictor of root coverage: a systematic review. J Periodontol. 2006 Oct;77(10):1625-34. [DOI:10.1902/jop.2006.060107] [PMID]
6. Yin XJ, Wei BY, Ke XP, Zhang T, Jiang MY, Luo XY, et al. Correlation between clinical parameters of crown and gingival morphology of anterior teeth and periodontal biotypes. BMC Oral Health. 2020 Feb 19;20(1):59. [DOI:10.1186/s12903-020-1040-x] [PMID] []
7. Kwon TH, Salem DM, Levin L. Periodontal considerations in orthodontic treatment: A review of the literature and recommended protocols. InSeminars in Orthodontics 2024 Jan 18. [DOI:10.1053/j.sodo.2024.01.011]
8. Al-Thomali Y, Mohamed RN, Basha S, Setty R, Manasali BS. Gingival Biotype and Its Relation with Malocclusion. Turk J Orthod. 2023 Mar 21;36(1):70-7. [DOI:10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2022.2021.0054] [PMID] []
9. Liu Z, Li C, Liu Y, Zeng J, Chu H, Chen P, Zhou T, Yin W, Rong M. The clinical significance and application of the peri-implant phenotype in dental implant surgery: a narrative review. Ann Transl Med. 2023 Aug 30;11(10):351. [DOI:10.21037/atm-23-1752] [PMID] []
10. Wang II, Barootchi S, Tavelli L, Wang HL. The peri-implant phenotype and implant esthetic complications. Contemporary overview. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2021 Jan;33(1):212-23. [DOI:10.1111/jerd.12709] [PMID]
11. Ioannou AL, Kotsakis GA, McHale MG, Lareau DE, Hinrichs JE, Romanos GE. Soft Tissue Surgical Procedures for Optimizing Anterior Implant Esthetics. Int J Dent. 2015;2015:740764. [DOI:10.1155/2015/740764] [PMID] []
12. Grunder U, Gracis S, Capelli M. Influence of the 3-D bone-to-implant relationship on esthetics. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2005 Apr;25(2):113-9.
13. Evans CD, Chen ST. Esthetic outcomes of immediate implant placements. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008 Jan;19(1):73-80. [DOI:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01413.x] [PMID]
14. Bengazi F, Wennström JL, Lekholm U. Recession of the soft tissue margin at oral implants. A 2-year longitudinal prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996 Dec;7(4):303-10. [DOI:10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070401.x] [PMID]
15. Fu JH, Lee A, Wang HL. Influence of tissue biotype on implant esthetics. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011 May-Jun;26(3):499-508.
16. 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 Apr;81(4):569-74. [DOI:10.1902/jop.2009.090591] [PMID]
17. Müller HP, Schaller N, Eger T. Ultrasonic determination of thickness of masticatory mucosa: a methodologic study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral RadiolEndod. 1999 Aug;88(2):248-53. [DOI:10.1016/S1079-2104(99)70123-X] [PMID]
18. Olsson M, Lindhe J, Marinello CP. On the relationship between crown form and clinical features of the gingiva in adolescents. J Clin Periodontol. 1993 Sep;20(8):570-7. [DOI:10.1111/j.1600-051X.1993.tb00773.x] [PMID]
19. Timock AM, Cook V, McDonald T, Leo MC, Crowe J, Benninger BL, Covell DA Jr. Accuracy and reliability of buccal bone height and thickness measurements from cone-beam computed tomography imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011 Nov;140(5):734-44. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.06.021] [PMID]
20. Esfahanizadeh N, Daneshparvar N, Askarpour F, Akhoundi N, Panjnoush M. Correlation Between Bone and Soft Tissue Thickness in Maxillary Anterior Teeth. J Dent (Tehran). 2016 Sep;13(5):302-8.
21. González-Martín O, Oteo C, Ortega R, Alandez J, Sanz M, Veltri M. Evaluation of peri-implant buccal bone by computed tomography: an experimental study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Aug;27(8):950-5. [DOI:10.1111/clr.12663] [PMID]
22. Fischer KR, Grill E, Jockel-Schneider Y, Bechtold M, Schlagenhauf U, Fickl S. On the relationship between gingival biotypes and supracrestal gingival height, crown form and papilla height. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Aug;25(8):894-8. [DOI:10.1111/clr.12196] [PMID]
23. Schoenbaum TR. Decoding CAD/CAM and digital impression units. Dent Today. 2010 Feb;29(2):140-5.
24. Qu F, Huang YJ, Wang YY, Cao XM, Shen YY, Wu ZA, Wu YQ, Xu C. Cone-beam CT evaluation of post-extraction alveolar bone changes at the maxillary incisor sites in an East Asian population: A cross-sectional study. Heliyon. 2024 May 29;10(11):e32027. [DOI:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e32027] [PMID] []
25. Wang L, Ruan Y, Chen J, Luo Y, Yang F. Assessment of the relationship between labial gingival thickness and the underlying bone thickness in maxillary anterior teeth by two digital techniques. Sci Rep. 2022 Jan 13;12(1):709. [DOI:10.1038/s41598-021-04721-7] [PMID] []
26. El Khalifa M, Abu El Sadat SM, Gaweesh YS, Gaweesh YY. Assessment of Gingival Thickness Using CBCT Compared to Transgingival Probing and Its Correlation with Labial Bone Defects: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2022 May-Jun;37(3):464-72. [DOI:10.11607/jomi.9234] [PMID]
27. Wang J, Cha S, Zhao Q, Bai D. Methods to assess tooth gingival thickness and diagnose gingival phenotypes: A systematic review. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2022 Jun;34(4): 620-32. [DOI:10.1111/jerd.12900] [PMID]
28. Kim YJ, Park JM, Kim S, Koo KT, Seol YJ, Lee YM, Rhyu IC, Ku Y. New method of assessing the relationship between buccal bone thickness and gingival thickness. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2016 Dec;46(6):372-81. [DOI:10.5051/jpis.2016.46.6.372] [PMID] []
29. Soltani P, Yaghini J, Rafiei K, Mehdizadeh M, Armogida NG, Esposito L, Spagnuolo G. Comparative Evaluation of the Accuracy of Gingival Thickness Measurement by Clinical Evaluation and Intraoral Ultrasonography. J Clin Med. 2023 Jun 29;12(13):4395. [DOI:10.3390/jcm12134395] [PMID] []
30. Couso-Queiruga E, Tattan M, Ahmad U, Barwacz C, Gonzalez-Martin O, Avila-Ortiz G. Assessment of gingival thickness using digital file superimposition versus direct clinical measurements. Clin Oral Investig. 2021 Apr;25(4):2353-61. [DOI:10.1007/s00784-020-03558-0] [PMID]
31. Stein JM, Lintel-Höping N, Hammächer 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 Dec;40(12):1132-9. [DOI:10.1111/jcpe.12169] [PMID]
32. 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 Dec;21(6):507-15. [DOI:10.1097/ID.0b013e318271d487] [PMID]
33. Mascardo KC, Tomack J, Chen CY, Mancini L, Kim DM, Friedland B, Barootchi S, Tavelli L. Risk indicators for gingival recession in the esthetic zone: A cross-sectional clinical, tomographic, and ultrasonographic study. J Periodontol. 2024 May;95(5):432-43. [DOI:10.1002/JPER.23-0357] [PMID]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
