Dişeti Kalınlığı Ölçüm Yöntemlerinin Karşılaştırılması
Project no. 345 · Status: Kapanmış · 2016
Summary
Aim:The appearance of a healthy periodontium may vary depending on the number of teeth, shape, position, morphology of the underlying bone, genetic and environmental factors and is expressed as a periodontal biotype. Gingival biotype affects the success of periodontal surgery and nonsurgical periodontal treatment. The aim of our study was to evaluate the consistency of gingival thickness determined by ultrasonic device, transgingival measurement and dental volumetric tomography. Furthermore, it was aimed to compare the gingival biotype determined by periodontal visibility or visual evaluation with gingival thickness measurements. Material and Methods: Twenty female and eleven male individual were included in the study.Gingival thickness was measured from 5 site for each individual by ultrasonic thickness gauge, transgingival measurement and dental volumetric tomography imaging. Vestibular bone thickness and distance from cementoenamel junction to the vestibule bone were measured from dvt imaging. The periodontal biotypes of the induviduals were determined by transparancy of the periodontal probe and visual evaluation. Visual assessment was made considering crown width/crown length ratio measured from the central tooth, papillary height, papillary width, and keratinized gingival width .Data were analyzed by Shapiro-Wilk test, Spearman correlation analysis, Cluster Analysis, Mann-Whitney U test, Tukey-Kramer test and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient statistical analysis. Results: A statistically significant positive correlation was found between gingival thickness measurement methods.It was found that the gingival thickness of the male subjects was higher than that of the women and the aproximal gingiva in the individuals was thicker than the vestibular gingiva of the teeth. It was seen that the thickness of the gingiva declined significantly from the central tooth to canines. There was a statistically significant difference between the gingival thicknesses of the zones classified as thin and thick biotypes according to the visibility of the periodontal probe, but no significant difference was detected in the visual evaluation method. The biotype determination according to the transparancy of the periodontal probeshowed poor relation with the visual evaluation method. Conclusions: Within the limits of this study, the determination of gingival thickness by CBCT imaging and ultrasonic thickness gauges yielded results consistent with transgingival probing and are reliable methods. Assessment of the periodontal biotype by transparancy of the periodontal probe is a reliable method that is easy to apply, whereas visual assessment is not a reliable method for determining the biotype.