Ultrasonic determination of gingival thickness. Subject variation and influence of tooth type and clinical features.
The objectives of the present study were (I) to determine the validity and reliability of measuring gingival thickness (GTH) with a recently developed, commercially available ultrasonic device; (II) to measure GTH in relation to tooth type and age of proband; (III) to correlate GTH with varying forms of premolars, canines and incisors. Ultrasonic measurements were performed in 200 periodontally healthy, male probands representing 3 different age groups (20-25, 40-45, 55-60 years). In the maxilla, mean GTH varied between 0.9 mm (canines, 1st molars) and 1.3 mm (2nd molars). In the mandible respective mean values ranged between 0.8 mm (canines) and 1.5 mm (2nd molars). No differences in means and standard deviations (0.36-0.39 mm) were observed in different age groups. In order to correlate GTH with other clinical parameters and form of tooth, in 42 probands of the youngest age group, presenting with no attrition or abrasion, no artificial crown restorations and (following prophylaxis) no overt gingivitis and no periodontal probing depth in excess of 3 mm, detailed clinical measurements and stone model cast analyses were performed. By stepwise multiple linear regression analysis, 24% (p < 0.0001) of the variation of GTH was explained by probing depth, recession, width of gingiva and tooth type. The ratio of the width of the crown to its length was not included into the model. When performing analysis of covariance with the subject as factor, the model was improved, now explaining 41% of the variation of GTH. In this model, the influence of periodontal probing depth was decreased, and recession was not included. It was concluded that there are individual differences in GTH (i.e., different biotypes). However, thickness mainly depends on tooth type and is correlated with width of gingiva. There appears to be no association with shape and form of the tooth. Validity and reliability of measuring GTH with the ultrasonic device was found to be excellent.
Eger
T
T
Department of Periodontology, German Armed Forces Central Hospital, Koblenz, Germany.
Müller
H P
HP
Heinecke
A
A
D000328:Adult; D000367:Age Factors; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D001641:Bicuspid / Q000033:anatomy & histology / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D003481:Cuspid / Q000033:anatomy & histology / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D004867:Equipment Design; D005881:Gingiva / Q000033:anatomy & histology / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D005888:Gingival Pocket / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000473:pathology; D005889:Gingival Recession / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000473:pathology; D005891:Gingivitis / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000473:pathology; D006801:Humans; D007180:Incisor / Q000033:anatomy & histology / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D016014:Linear Models; D008297:Male; D008334:Mandible; D008437:Maxilla; D008875:Middle Aged; D003765:Models, Dental; D009811:Odontometry; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D014070:Tooth / Q000033:anatomy & histology* / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D019228:Tooth Crown / Q000033:anatomy & histology; D014463:Ultrasonography / Q000295:instrumentation