Home Subscription Services
 
   

 
Oral Health and Preventive Dentistry
OHPD Home Page
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Submit
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Reprints / Articles
Permissions
Advertising
MEDLINE Search
Offical Web Site
 
 
 
 
 
FacebookTwitter
Quintessence Publishing: Journals: OHPD

 

Oral Health & Preventive Dentistry

Edited by Anton Sculean, Poul Erik Petersen, Avijit Banerjee

ISSN (print) 1602-1622 • ISSN (online) 1757-9996

Publication:

2021
Volume 19 , Issue 1



Pages: 263270
DOI: 10.3290/j.ohpd.b1248965
Back
Share Abstract:

Gingival Thickness Assessment at Mandibular Incisors of Orthodontic Patients with Ultrasound and Cone-beam CT. A Cross-sectional Study

Dimitrios Kloukos / Lydia Kakali / George Koukos / Anton Sculean / Andreas Stavropoulos / Christos Katsaros

Purpose: To use and evaluate two methods for measuring gingival thickness (GT) at mandibular incisors of orthodontic patients and compare their performance in assessing periodontal anatomy through soft tissue thickness. Materials and Methods: The sample consisted of 40 consecutive adult orthodontic patients. GT was measured just before bracket placement at both central mandibular incisors, mid-facially on the buccal aspect, 2 mm apically to the free gingival margin with two methods: clinically with an ultrasound device (USD) and radiographically with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Results: CBCT measurements were consistently higher than USD measurements, with the difference ranging from 0.13 mm to 0.21 mm. No statistically significant difference was noted between the repeated CBCT measurements at the right central incisor (bias = 0.05 mm; 95% CI = -0.01, 0.11; p = 0.104). Although the respective results for the left incisor statistically indicated that the measurements were not exactly replicated, the magnitude of the point estimate was small and not clinically significant (bias = 0.06 mm; 95% CI = 0.01, 0.11; p = 0.014). Small differences between CBCT measurements made by the 2 examiners at the left central incisor (bias = 0.06 mm; 95% CI = 0.01, 0.11; p = 0.014) were detected. However, this difference was minor and also not clinically significant. The respective analysis on the right incisor showed no statistically significant difference (bias = 0.05 mm; 95% CI = -0.01, 0.11; p = 0.246). Conclusions: Based on reproducibility, CBCT imaging for gingival thickness assessment proved to be as reliable as ultrasound determination. However, CBCT consistently yielded higher values, albeit at a marginal level, than did the ultrasound device.

Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
  © 2021 Quintessence Publishing Co Inc
 

Home | Subscription Services | Books | Journals | Multimedia | Events | Blog
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising | Help | Sitemap | Catalog