nach oben

BMC Oral Health

Erschienen in:

Open Access 01.12.2024 | Research

Assessment of the correlation between supracrestal gingival tissue dimensions and other periodontal phenotypes components via the digital registration method: a cross‑sectional study in a Chinese population

verfasst von: Kaijin Lin, Siyi Wang, Xiaofeng Xu, Lu Yu, Rui Pan, Minqian Zheng, Jin Yang, Jianbin Guo

Erschienen in: BMC Oral Health | Ausgabe 1/2024

Abstract

Background

Supracrestal gingival tissue dimensions (SGTDs) has been considered to be an essential element of periodontal phenotype (PP) components. This study aimed to explore the relationship between SGTDs and other PP components by digital superposition method that integrated cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) with intraoral scanning.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted at the Stomatology Hospital of Fujian Medical University. Participants were recruited based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data obtained from the digital scanner (TRIOS 3, 3Shape, Denmark) and CBCT images were imported into the TRIOS software (Implant Studio, 3Shape, Denmark) for computing relevant parameters. The significant level was set at 0.05.

Results

A total of 83 participants with 498 maxillary anterior teeth were finally included. The mean values of supracrestal gingival height (SGH) and the distance from the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) to the crest of the alveolar ridge (CEJ-ABC) on the buccal site were significantly higher than palatal SGH (SGH-p) and palatal CEJ-ABC (CEJ-ABC-p). Men exhibited taller CEJ-ABC and SGH-p than women. Additionally, tooth type was significantly associated with the SGH, SGH-p and CEJ-ABC-p. Taller SGH was associated with wider crown, smaller papilla height (PH), flatter gingival margin, thicker bone thickness (BT) and gingival thickness (GT) at CEJ, the alveolar bone crest (ABC), and 2 mm apical to the ABC. Smaller SGH-p displayed thicker BT and GT at CEJ, the ABC, and 2 and 4 mm apical to the ABC. Higher CEJ-ABC showed lower interproximal bone height, smaller PH, flatter gingival margin, thinner GT and BT at CEJ, and 2 mm apical to the ABC. Smaller CEJ-ABC-p displayed thicker BT at CEJ and 2 and 4 mm apical to the ABC. On the buccal, thicker GT was correlated with thicker BT at 2 and 4 mm below the ABC.

Conclusion

SGTDs exhibited a correlation with other PP components, especially crown shape, gingival margin and interdental PH. The relationship between SGTDs and gingival and bone phenotypes depended on the apico-coronal level evaluated.

Trial registration

This study was approved by the Biomedical Research Ethics Committee of Stomatology Hospital of Fujian Medical University (approval no. 2023-24).

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04158-0.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Background

As aesthetic expectations in dentistry have risen, the criteria for aesthetics in anterior dental restorations have become more rigorous [1‐4]. Achieving ideal aesthetic outcomes goes beyond merely reconstructing the crown shape and color; it necessitates a comprehensive approach to managing the surrounding soft and hard tissues. Accurate assessment of the periodontal phenotype around teeth and peri-implant is crucial for devising an appropriate treatment strategy that ensures a satisfactory esthetic outcome aligned with long-term function, comfort, and periodontal health [5‐7]. Lacking a profound understanding of these periodontal features could compromise the long-term success of periodontal surgery, restorative therapy, and implant treatment [8‐10].

The 2017 World Workshop on the classification of periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions reached a consensus that the periodontal phenotype (PP) was categorized by the gingival morphotype (GM), which includes gingival thickness (GT) and the width of keratinized tissue, and the bone morphotype (BM), namely the thickness of the buccal bone plate (BT) [11]. This consensus, however, provided limited perspectives on supracrestal gingival tissue dimensions (SGTDs), which has been recognized to be an essential element regarding PP components [12]. Clinically, SGTDs was characterized by two main measurements: the supracrestal gingival height (SGH) and the distance from the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) to the crest of the alveolar ridge (CEJ-ABC). The concept of SGH was first introduced by Smukler in 1997 [13] and was defined from a histological perspective, encompassing sulcus depth, epithelial attachment, and the connective tissue attachment of the gingiva [14]. Additionally, CEJ-ABC has been acknowledged as a pivotal indicator for evaluating alveolar bone resorption [15]. Any infringement to SGTDs might trigger inflammatory responses, which could result in the downward migration of the gingival margin and subsequent bone loss [11]. Thus, accurate assessment of SGTDs morphology is vital before aesthetic treatments, ensuring more informed clinical decisions. Previous research has highlighted considerable clinical variation in SGTDs dimensions across different dental arches, surfaces, tooth types, and nationalities [16]. However, a comprehensive study concerning SGTDs in the Chinese Han population is still lacking.

Conflicting results have emerged on the association between SGTDs and other PP [14, 17]. One study found a negative correlation between SGTDs (SGH and CEJ-ABC) and both BT and GT using intraoral clinical photographs and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images [12]. This finding was in accordance with Cook and collaborators [18], who employed CBCT and clinical examinations on the maxillary anterior teeth (incisors, lateral incisors, and canines) of 60 patients. They noted taller CEJ-ABC measurements in patients with a thin PP compared to those with a thick PP. In contrast, a clinical study focusing on periodontally healthy Indians conducted by Arora using transgingival probing [14], reported individuals with thicker biotypes exhibited higher SGH than those with thinner counterparts. A significant factor contributing to these varied findings seems to be the different clinical assessment methodologies used to measure SGTDs and other PP [16].

Various methods for measuring PP components have been documented, encompassing histological measurements, clinical examinations [19] and digital assessment [20, 21]. Previous studies have demonstrated that digital assessment using CBCT imaging was effective and noninvasive to characterize the phenotypic features of the periodontium compared with clinical methods and histologic assessments [22‐26]. In comparison to CBCT, intraoral scanning yield greater precision in capturing soft tissue morphotypes, encompassing aspects such as crown and GM, the curve of the gingival margin, and papilla height (PH) [27, 28]. Research has suggested that integrating CBCT images with intraoral scanning data could comprehensively assess the periodontal phenotype of both bone and soft tissue in clinical practice [21, 29, 30]. To date, there is a limited number of studies that have utilized this multidimensional methodology to investigate the correlation between SGTDs and other PP. Therefore, the aim of this cross-sectional study was to assess the relationship between SGTDs (SGH and CEJ-ABC) and crown morphology (CM), GM and BM on both buccal and palatal sides, with the digital approach involving CBCT images and intraoral scanning. The null hypothesis was that there was no significant correlation between SGTDs (SGH and CEJ-ABC) and other PP of periodontally healthy Han nationality youth in the maxillary anterior zone.

Methods

Ethical considerations

This study was approved by the Biomedical Research Ethics Committee of Stomatology Hospital of Fujian Medical University, China (approval no. 2023-24). Each participant provided informed consent after receiving a comprehensive explanation regarding the nature, risks, and benefits of this clinical investigation [31].

Study design and population

This cross-sectional study was conducted at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Affiliated Stomatological Hospital of Fujian Medical University (China) from November 2022 to June 2023. This study was carried out in accordance with the guideline for the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement [32].

Inclusion criteria were: (1) Han nationality; (2) Age range of 18–25 years; (3) Healthy periodontal status: gingival index of 0, no bleeding upon probing, probing depth up to 3 mm, absence of gingival recession, and no attachment loss; (4) Complete natural maxillary dentition without any fillings, prosthetic crowns, endodontic treatments, decay, root resorption, or any misalignment in the teeth under examination; (5) No crowded dentition in the maxillary anterior region. Exclusion criteria were: (1) Prior periodontal surgery in the maxillary anterior region; (2) Intake of any medication influencing bone or soft tissue metabolism; (3) Previous orthodontic treatments; (4) Smoking; (5) Withdrawal of consent.

Data acquisition

Before the test, each participant received instructions on oral hygiene maintenance. Additionally, they underwent professional mechanical plaque removal a week prior to the assessment. The intraoral scanner, TRIOS 3 (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark), was utilized following a standardized scan protocol recommended by a prior study [33]. Prior to scanning, care was taken to thoroughly dry the participants’ dental surfaces and soft tissues. All the intraoral scans were saved in polygon (PLY) format. The collection of CBCT images adhered to a standardized procedure in line with manufacturer guidelines and followed the principle of as low as diagnostically acceptable (ALADA) according to the patient’s needs [34]. Before using the CBCT machine (KaVo-i-CAT 17–19, KaVo, Germany), participants were equipped with lead aprons and positioned in an intercuspal position [35]. The scan had settings of 220 V, 50 Hz, 1150 VA, with a field of 16 cm x 8 cm, voxel size at 0.2 mm, and an exposure time of 26.9 s. CBCT scans were saved as digital imaging and communication in medicine (DICOM) files. Subsequently, Mimics Medical 20.0 (Materialise, Belgium) was utilized for image processing and maxillary bone mathematical analysis [36], which allowed for automatic superimposition of images. Both the PLY and DICOM files were imported into the TRIOS software (Implant Studio, 3Shape, Denmark) and underwent standardized alignment. The initial registration of the CBCT and intraoral scans was performed using automatic registration in the software, followed by manual adjustments for fine-tuning. After completing the registration, the alignment accuracy was observed.

Clinical parameters and measurement

A calibrated dentist (Kaijin Lin) carried out all the measurements, and to ensure accuracy, these measurements were retaken after a one-week interval. All intraoral scans were imported into Geomagic Control X (3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC) to generate digital models and compute the associated indices. (Fig. 1) Clinical investigative parameters were assessed: crown length (CL), crown width (CW), crown shape (CW/CL), gingival angle (GA), papilla angle (PA), papilla width (PW), and PH. (Table 1; Fig. 2) Parameters associated with BM using CBCT images included bone margin angle (BMA), interproximal bone angle (IBA), and interproximal bone height (IBH). (Table 1; Fig. 3) When integrating data from CBCT images with intraoral scanning, the following relevant parameters were measured: facial SGH (SGH), palatal SGH (SGH-p), facial distance from CEJ to the crest of alveolar ridge (CEJ-ABC), palatal CEJ-ABC (CEJ-ABC-p), facial GT at the CEJ (GT_cej), palatal GT at the CEJ (GT_cej-p), facial GT at the alveolar bone crest (ABC) (GT_abc), palatal GT at the ABC (GT_abc-p), facial GT at 2 mm apical to the ABC (GT₁), palatal GT at 2 mm apical to the ABC (GT₁-p), facial GT at 4 mm apical to the ABC (GT₂), palatal GT at 4 mm apical to the ABC (GT₂-p), facial BT at 2 mm apical to the ABC (BT₁), palatal BT at 2 mm apical to the ABC (BT₁-p), facial BT at 4 mm apical to the ABC (BT₂) and palatal BT at 4 mm apical to the ABC (BT₂-p). (Table 1; (Fig. 4A) (Fig. 4B and C)

Table 1

The definition, measurement methods and classification of different periodontal features

Classification	Parameters	Method	Definition
CM	CL	IOS	The shortest distance from the gingival zenith to the incisal edge
	CW		The distance between the proximal tooth surfaces measured at the border between the middle and cervical portions
	Crown shape		CW/CL
GM	GA	IOS	The angle between the gingival zenith and the zeniths of the corresponding adjacent gingival papillae
	PA		The angle between the zenith of the gingival papilla and the gingival zeniths of the corresponding adjacent teeth
	PW		The distance between the gingival zeniths of the adjacent teeth
	PH		The shortest distance from the zenith of the papilla to a line connects the gingival zeniths of the adjacent teeth
	SGH	IOS + CBCT	The distance from the gingival margin to the ABC
	CEJ-ABC		The distance between the CEJ and the ABC
	GT		Gingival thickness, comprise GT_cej, GT_abc, GT₁ and GT₂
	GT-p		GT on the palatal side, comprise GT_cej-p, GT_abc-p, GT₁-p and GT₂-p
BM	BMA	CBCT	The angle between the bone margin zenith and the zeniths of the corresponding adjacent interproximal bone
	IBA		The angle between the zenith of the interproximal bone and the corresponding adjacent bone margin zeniths
	IBH		The shortest distance from the zenith of the interproximal bone to a line connects the adjacent bone margin zeniths
	BT	IOS + CBCT	Bone thickness, comprise BT₁ and BT₂
	BT-p	IOS + CBCT	Bone thickness on the palatal side, comprise BT₁-p and BT₂-p

CM: crown morphology; GM: gingival morphology; BM: bone morphology; IOS: intraoral scanning; CBCT: cone beam computed tomography; ABC: the crest of alveolar ridge; GT_cej: gingival thickness (GT) at the level of the cementoenamel junction (CEJ); GT_abc: GT at the ABC; GT₁: GT from 2 mm apical to the ABC; GT₂: GT from 4 mm apical to the ABC; GT_cej-p: GT at the level of the CEJ on the palatal side; GT_abc-p: GT at the ABC on the palatal side; GT₁-p: GT from 2 mm apical to the ABC on the palatal side; GT₂-p: GT from 4 mm apical to the bone crest on the palatal side; BT₁: BT at 2 mm apical to the ABC; BT₂: BT at 2 mm apical to the ABC; BT₁-p: BT at 2 mm apical to the ABC on the palatal side; BT₂-p: BT at 2 mm apical to the ABC on the palatal side

Statistical analysis

All data were analyzed using SPSS 22.0 statistical software (SPSS version 22.0, Chicago, IL). The reliability analysis of all variables was conducted using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The Shapiro-Wilk test and Probability-probability Plot were employed to assess the Gaussian distribution of all variables. Data following a normal distribution is presented as mean ± standard deviation (\(\overline{x}\) ± s). Paired sample tests were conducted to determine if there was a statistical difference between the data from the left and right sides. If no statistical difference was found, the data for corresponding teeth on both sides were merged. The comparison of continuous variables at different tooth positions used Student’s t-test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Various variables’ correlations were determined using Pearson correlations. The Pearson r score was adopted (r = 0.1–0.3, weak correlation; r = 0.4–0.6; moderate correlation; r > 0.7, strong correlation) [37]. Statistical significance was set at 0.05.

Sample size calculation

In this research, we adopted a cross-sectional study design, analyzing at the level of individual teeth. Based on relevant literature [14, 17] and preliminary trial results, the minimum sample size was determined using PASS software (PASS 2020, Kaysville, American). It was estimated at 424 teeth, accounting for a sampling error of α = 0.05, a study power of 0.9, and an anticipated dropout rate of 20%.

Results

Of the total 134 participants included in the study after initial screening. Eight individuals were excluded due to a history of smoking, previous orthodontic treatment, or root canal treatment. Then 43 subjects were excluded because of crowding or misalignment of the maxillary anterior teeth. Therefore, a total of 498 anterior teeth from 83 participants (40 males and 43 females), with an average age of 21.6 ± 2.8 years old, were finally included in this study. ICC analysis indicated a high level of reliability in digital assessments (κ score = 0.927), CBCT assessments (κ score = 0.935) and combination methods (κ score = 0.902).

Mean SGH and CEJ-ABC at different genders and tooth types

The mean values of SGH (3.29 ± 0.61 mm) and CEJ-ABC (1.46 ± 0.47 mm) on the buccal site were significantly higher than palatal SGH-p (2.91 ± 0.51 mm) and CEJ-ABC-p (0.98 ± 0.31 mm) (P < 0.01). There was a significant gender difference in CEJ-ABC and SGH-p measurements. For CEJ-ABC, male participants averaged 1.56 mm, while female participants averaged 1.37 mm (P < 0.05). In terms of SGH-p, males recorded an average of 3.02 mm, whereas females averaged 2.83 mm (P < 0.01). Additionally, tooth type was significantly associated with the SGH, SGH-p and CEJ-ABC-p (P < 0.01). Central incisors performed the highest SGH (3.46 ± 0.58 mm), followed by lateral incisors (3.39 ± 0.62 mm) and canines (3.03 ± 0.54 mm). Regarding SGH-p, canines showed a higher SGH-p (3.21 ± 0.54 mm) than lateral incisors (2.88 ± 0.46 mm) and central incisors (2.65 ± 0.38 mm). Canines exhibited the highest CEJ-ABC-p (1.06 ± 0.30 mm) compared to incisors (0.96 ± 0.31 mm) and lateral incisors (0.92 ± 0.31 mm). (Table 2)

Table 2

Periodontal variables at different genders and teeth

	Overall			Central incisors			Lateral incisors			Canines
	Mean ± SD	Men Mean ± SD	Women Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Men Mean ± SD	Women Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Men Mean ± SD	Women Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Men Mean ± SD	Women Mean ± SD
CL(mm)	9.02 ± 1.20	9.52 ± 1.11	8.62 ± 1.12^**	9.69 ± 1.00^{§§^^}	10.17 ± 0.78	9.30 ± 1.00^**	8.28 ± 1.05^{##^^}	8.82 ± 0.98	7.85 ± 0.90^**	9.08 ± 1.12^##§§	9.57 ± 1.13	8.69 ± 0.95^**
CW(mm)	6.71 ± 0.82	6.92 ± 0.76	6.54 ± 0.83^**	7.43 ± 0.48^{§§^^}	7.58 ± 0.43	7.30 ± 0.49^*	5.86 ± 0.59^{##^^}	6.11 ± 0.54	5.67 ± 0.57^*	6.84 ± 0.43^##§§	7.06 ± 0.39	6.66 ± 0.38^**
CW/CL	0.75 ± 0.09	0.73 ± 0.08	0.76 ± 0.09^*	0.77 ± 0.08^§§	0.75 ± 0.07	0.79 ± 0.08^*	0.71 ± 0.08^{##^^}	0.70 ± 0.08	0.73 ± 0.08^*	0.76 ± 0.09^§§	0.75 ± 0.09	0.77 ± 0.08
GA(°)	94.61 ± 10.38	92.29 ± 10.07	96.46 ± 10.30^*	97.03 ± 9.36^{^^}	94.77 ± 9.10	98.84 ± 9.28	96.47 ± 9.82^{^^}	93.16 ± 9.45	99.11 ± 9.41	90.32 ± 10.69^##§§	88.94 ± 10.96	91.42 ± 10.48
PA(°)	102.21 ± 11.35	99.40 ± 10.70	104.46 ± 11.40^**	103.93 ± 11.59^§	100.59 ± 10.84	106.60 ± 11.61^*	100.00 ± 10.12^#	96.33 ± 8.25	102.93 ± 10.60^*	102.71 ± 12.04	101.28 ± 12.26	103.85 ± 11.90
PW(mm)	8.66 ± 0.92	8.84 ± 0.80	8.51 ± 0.97^**	9.39 ± 0.77^{§§^^}	9.46 ± 0.63	9.34 ± 0.88	8.30 ± 0.59^##	8.52 ± 0.66	8.13 ± 0.47	8.28 ± 0.88^##	8.53 ± 0.75	8.07 ± 0.93^*
PH(mm)	3.55 ± 0.78	3.84 ± 0.76	3.31 ± 0.72^**	3.82 ± 0.81^{§§^^}	4.14 ± 0.71	3.56 ± 0.80^**	3.47 ± 0.64^##	3.79 ± 0.59	3.22 ± 0.56^**	3.37 ± 0.81^##§§	3.58 ± 0.87	3.19 ± 0.73^*
IBH(mm)	2.63 ± 0.48	2.78 ± 0.51	2.50 ± 0.42^**	2.82 ± 0.55^{§§^^}	2.98 ± 0.63	2.70 ± 0.43^*	2.58 ± 0.39^##	2.71 ± 0.40	2.48 ± 0.36^*	2.48 ± 0.43^##	2.66 ± 0.43	2.33 ± 0.38^**
BMA(°)	112.70 ± 9.66	110.98 ± 10.03	114.08 ± 9.17^*	113.36 ± 8.38	112.88 ± 9.24	113.74 ± 7.73	112.57 ± 10.82	109.02 ± 10.17	115.41 ± 10.59	112.17 ± 9.74	111.03 ± 10.59	113.09 ± 9.03
IBA(°)	115.43 ± 10.08	112.83 ± 9.85	117.50 ± 9.81^**	114.28 ± 10.78^{^}	111.18 ± 11.12	116.76 ± 9.95^*	113.62 ± 9.82^{^^}	110.59 ± 8.07	116.05 ± 10.49^*	118.38 ± 9.02^#§§	116.72 ± 9.20	2.33 ± 0.38
SGH(mm)	3.29 ± 0.61	3.26 ± 0.63	3.31 ± 0.59	3.46 ± 0.58^{^^}	3.43 ± 0.62	3.47 ± 0.53	3.39 ± 0.62^{^^}	3.29 ± 0.63	3.47 ± 0.61	3.03 ± 0.54^##§§v	3.06 ± 0.57	3.00 ± 0.52
CEJ-ABC(mm)	1.46 ± 0.47	1.56 ± 0.53	1.37 ± 0.40^*	1.47 ± 0.54	1.66 ± 0.62	1.32 ± 0.43^**	1.46 ± 0.42	1.56 ± 0.44	1.37 ± 0.40^**	1.44 ± 0.44	1.47 ± 0.51	1.42 ± 0.39
GT_cej	1.20 ± 0.32	1.21 ± 0.38	1.18 ± 0.26	1.44 ± 0.34^{§§^^}	1.47 ± 0.45	1.41 ± 0.21	1.09 ± 0.23^##	1.08 ± 0.27	1.10 ± 0.21	1.06 ± 0.22^##	1.08 ± 0.25	1.04 ± 0.20
GT_abc	1.42 ± 0.31	1.45 ± 0.34	1.41 ± 0.28	1.70 ± 0.27^{§§^^}	1.77 ± 0.29	1.64 ± 0.24^*	1.28 ± 0.24^##	1.27 ± 0.24	1.29 ± 0.23^*	1.30 ± 0.22^##	1.30 ± 0.23	1.29 ± 0.22
GT₁	0.67 ± 0.25	0.69 ± 0.30	0.65 ± 0.20^**	0.65 ± 0.30	0.70 ± 0.39	0.61 ± 0.21	0.69 ± 0.23	0.68 ± 0.27	0.70 ± 0.21	0.66 ± 0.22	0.68 ± 0.25	0.64 ± 0.19
GT₂	0.67 ± 0.23	0.72 ± 0.23	0.63 ± 0.23^**	0.66 ± 0.18^§	0.72 ± 0.17	0.62 ± 0.18^*	0.75 ± 0.23^{#^^}	0.80 ± 0.20	0.70 ± 0.25^*	0.60 ± 0.26^§§	0.63 ± 0.27	0.57 ± 0.25
BT₁	0.90 ± 0.26	0.92 ± 0.32	0.88 ± 0.20	0.95 ± 0.32^{^}	0.99 ± 0.42	0.91 ± 0.21	0.89 ± 0.23	0.88 ± 0.27	0.90 ± 0.21	0.86 ± 0.22^#	0.88 ± 0.25	0.84 ± 0.20
BT₂	0.74 ± 0.25	0.79 ± 0.25	0.71 ± 0.25^*	0.82 ± 0.18^§§	0.84 ± 0.15	0.80 ± 0.20	0.59 ± 0.17^{##^^}	0.64 ± 0.19	0.55 ± 0.15	0.82 ± 0.31^§§	0.89 ± 0.31	0.76 ± 0.31
SGH-p	2.91 ± 0.51	3.02 ± 0.51	2.83 ± 0.49^**	2.65 ± 0.38^{§§^^}	2.68 ± 0.38	2.63 ± 0.39	2.88 ± 0.46^{##^^}	3.01 ± 0.46	2.77 ± 0.43	3.21 ± 0.54^##§§	3.36 ± 0.45	3.09 ± 0.53^*
CEJ-ABC-p	0.98 ± 0.31	1.00 ± 0.33	0.96 ± 0.30	0.96 ± 0.31	0.98 ± 0.31	0.95 ± 0.31	0.92 ± 0.31^{^^}	0.91 ± 0.28	0.93 ± 0.34	1.06 ± 0.30^§§	1.47 ± 0.51	1.01 ± 0.24
GT_cej-p	1.88 ± 0.51	1.92 ± 0.49	1.85 ± 0.52	1.71 ± 0.40^{§^^}	1.76 ± 0.46	1.67 ± 0.35	1.88 ± 0.62^{#^}	1.96 ± 0.60	1.81 ± 0.64	2.06 ± 0.42^##§	1.08 ± 0.25	2.07 ± 0.46
GT_abc-p	2.56 ± 0.59	2.67 ± 0.54	2.48 ± 0.61^*	2.41 ± 0.50^{^^}	2.51 ± 0.51	2.33 ± 0.49	2.56 ± 0.70	2.75 ± 0.68	2.42 ± 0.69	2.72 ± 0.50^##	1.30 ± 0.25	2.70 ± 0.60
GT₁-p	2.77 ± 0.58	2.90 ± 0.52	2.66 ± 0.60^**	2.40 ± 0.49^{§§^^}	2.53 ± 0.47	2.30 ± 0.48^*	2.84 ± 0.50^{##^}	3.06 ± 0.44	2.68 ± 0.48^*	3.05 ± 0.56^##§	0.68 ± 0.25	3.00 ± 0.63
GT₂-p	2.96 ± 0.63	3.03 ± 0.59	2.91 ± 0.66	2.54 ± 0.50^{§§^^}	2.57 ± 0.49	2.52 ± 0.51	2.84 ± 0.55^{##^^}	2.96 ± 0.39	2.75 ± 0.64	3.51 ± 0.40^##§§	0.63 ± 0.27	3.46 ± 0.42
BT₁-p	1.40 ± 0.39	1.47 ± 0.38	1.35 ± 0.39^*	1.53 ± 0.52^{§§^^}	1.69 ± 0.40	1.41 ± 0.41^**	1.32 ± 0.33^##	1.38 ± 0.33	1.27 ± 0.33^**	1.36 ± 0.37^##	0.88 ± 0.25	1.36 ± 0.42
BT₂-p	2.29 ± 0.72	2.50 ± 0.73	2.11 ± 0.67^**	2.42 ± 0.74^§	2.79 ± 0.76	2.12 ± 0.58^**	2.12 ± 0.71^##	2.39 ± 0.69	1.90 ± 0.66^**	2.33 ± 0.69	0.89 ± 0.31	2.32 ± 0.71

*significantly different compared to males’ group (*:P < 0.05, **: P < 0.01)

#significantly different compared to central incisors group (#:P < 0.05, ##: P < 0.01)

§significantly different compared to lateral incisors group (§: P < 0.05, §§: P < 0.01)

^significantly different compared to canines group (^:P < 0.05,^^: P < 0.01)

Correlation analysis between SGTDs (SGH and CEJ-ABC) and other PP

No statistical difference in each PP variable was observed between contralateral teeth with the same name (P > 0.05). Therefore, the data for contralateral teeth with the same name were combined. The relationship between SGH and CEJ-ABC and other periodontal features is shown in Table 2. SGH and CEJ-ABC show a positive correlation, both in the buccal (r = 0.253, P < 0.01) and palatal site (r = 0.220, P < 0.01).

For SGH, on the buccal side, it exhibited a positive correlation with crown shape (CW/CL) (r = 0.299, P < 0.001), GA (r = 0.467, P < 0.001), PA (r = 0.385, P < 0.001), GT_cej (r = 0.427, P < 0.001), GT_abc (r = 0.283, P < 0.001), GT₁ (r = 0.338, P < 0.001) and BT₁(r = 0.413, P < 0.001), while there was a negative correlation with CL (r = -0.292, P < 0.001) and PH (r = -0.317, P < 0.001). On the palatal site, SGH-p exhibited a positive correlation with GT_abc (r = 0.399, P < 0.001), GT_cej (r = 0.464, P < 0.001), GT₁(r = 0.511, P < 0.001), GT₂(r = 0.474, P < 0.001). (Table 3)

Table 3

Correlation between the periodontal supracrestal soft tissue dimensions and other periodontal features

			Crown morphology			Gingival morphology				Bone morphology			Gingival morphology				Bone morphology
Site			CL	CW	CW/CL	GA	PA	PW	PH	BMA	IBA	IBH	GT_cej/ GT_cej-p	GT_abc/ GT_abc-p	GT₁/GT₁-P	GT₂/ GT₂-p	BT₁/ BT₁-p	BT₂/ BT₂-p
Facial	SGH	Pearson r	-0.292*	-0.025	0.299*	0.467*	0.385*	0.080	-0.317*	-0.057	-0.120	0.123	0.427*	0.283*	0.388*	-0.063	0.413*	-0.028
	SGH	p-value	0.000	0.715	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.241	0.000	0.403	0.077	0.071	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.354	0.000	0.678
	CEJ-ABC	Pearson r	0.278*	0.080	-0.234*	-0.211*	-0.203*	0.63	0.222*	-0.148*	-0.181*	0.173*	-0.201*	-0.083	-0.217*	-0.061	-0.230*	-0.003
	CEJ-ABC	p-value	0.000	0.241	0.001	0.002	0.003	0.354	0.001	0.029	0.008	0.011	0.003	0.223	0.001	0.372	0.001	0.964
Palatal	SGH-p	Pearson r	-0.101	-0.130	-0.027	-0.016	0.120	-0.245*	-0.254*	-0.060	0.069	-0.142*	0.464*	0.399*	0.511*	0.474*	-0.018	0.013
	SGH-p	p-value	0.141	0.057	0.692	0.818	0.079	0.000	0.000	0.383	0.312	0.038	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.787	0.853
	CEJ-ABC-p	Pearson r	0.073	0.021	-0.060	-0.035	0.058	-0.007	-0.020	-0.014	-0.024	-0.013	-0.206*	-0.060	0.071	0.212*	-0.150*	-0.174*
	CEJ-ABC-p	p-value	0.287	0.755	0.383	0.604	0.396	0.920	0.774	0.837	0.726	0.854	0.002	0.383	0.297	0.002	0.028	0.011

The facial GTs and BTs across all levels are exclusively compared with SGH and CEJ-ABC. The palatal GTs and BTs across all levels are exclusively compared with SGH-p and CEJ-ABC-p

For CEJ-ABC, on the buccal site, it exhibited a positive correlation with CL (r = 0.278, P < 0.001), PH (r = 0.222, P < 0.001) and IBH (r = 0.173, P < 0.001), while it showed a negative correlation with CW/CL (r = -0.234, P < 0.001), GA (r = -0.211, P < 0.001), PA (r = -0.223, P < 0.01), BMA (r = -0.148, P < 0.05), IBA (r = -0.181, P < 0.01), GT_cej (r = -0.201, P < 0.01), GT₁ (r = -0.217, P < 0.001), BT₁ (r = -0.230, P < 0.001).On the palatal side, CEJ-ABC-p exhibits a negative correlation with GT_cej (r = -0.206, P < 0.01), BT₁ (r = -0.150, P < 0.05), BT₂ (r = -0.174, P < 0.05). (Table 3)

Correlation analysis between GM and BM

The relationship between gingival morphology and bone morphology is shown in Table 4. GA exhibited a significant positive correlation with BMA (r = 0.315, P < 0.001). PA was positively correlated with the IBA (r = 0.332, P < 0.001). A positive correlation was detected between PH and IBH (r = 0.321, P < 0.001).

Table 4

Correlation between the gingival and bone morphology

Gingival morphology	Bone morphology
GA	BMA	Pearson r	0.315*
GA	BMA	p-value	0.000
PA	IBA	Pearson r	0.332*
PA	IBA	p-value	0.000
PH	IBH	Pearson r	0.321*
PH	IBH	p-value	0.000
GT₁	BT₁	Pearson r	0.463*
GT₁	BT₁	p-value	0.000
GT₂	BT₂	Pearson r	0.181*
GT₂	BT₂	p-value	0.008
GT₁-p	BT₁-p	Pearson r	0.131
GT₁-p	BT₁-p	p-value	0.055
GT₂-p	BT₂-p	Pearson r	0.027
GT₂-p	BT₂-p	p-value	0.688

The gingival angle (GA) corresponds to the bone margin angle (BMA), the papilla angle (GA) corresponds to the underlying interproximal bone angle (IBA), and the papilla height (PH) corresponds to the underlying interproximal bone height (IBH). GT₁ and BT₁ refer to the gingival thickness and alveolar bone thickness 2 mm below the crest of the alveolar ridge, while GT₂ and BT₂ refer to the gingival thickness and alveolar bone thickness 4 mm below the crest of the alveolar ridge

The correlation analysis revealed that at 2 and 4 mm below the ABC on the buccal aspect, the GT is positively correlated with BT (r = 0.463 and 0.181, P < 0.001). However, no significant correlation was found between GT and BT on the palatal aspect(P > 0.05).

Discussion

In this study, we observed a significant correlation between SGTDs and CM (CW/CL, CL), GM (GA, PA, GT) and BM (BT) in the anterior maxillary region. Therefore, the null hypothesis was partially rejected. To the best of our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive cross-sectional investigation utilizing CBCT and intraoral scanning to explore the relationship between SGTDs and other periodontal characteristics. Meanwhile, we introduced several angular metrics (IBA, BMA and PA) that captured the curvature of the gingival papillae and interdental bone crest for the first time, serving as an enhancement to the characterization of GM and BM. This study adopted a digital multidimensional methodology superimposing CBCT imaging and digital intraoral scan files. This allowed for the simultaneous measurement of both soft (GT) and hard (BT) tissues at consistent levels across varying depths [5].

This study revealed that among the 83 participants included in this study, SGH on the facial side (3.29 mm) was consistent with the mean value reported by Couso-Queiruga et al. (3.26 mm) [12], who evaluated 587 maxillary anterior teeth (central incisor, lateral incisors, and canines) from 87 periodontally healthy Brazilians. However, this deviated slightly from measurements by the study conducted by Fischer (2.63 mm) [17], which assessed 80 Germans by observing gingiva transparency, and Arora (3.5 mm) [14], which measured a total of 23 individuals (14 males and 9 females) and 1932 sites (central incisor, premolar and molar) by the visibility of periodontal probe. The discrepancy could be attributed to the measurement methods used and the populations being included. Additionally, we observed an average facial CEJ-ABC measurement of 1.46 ± 0.47 mm, which is notably smaller than findings from previous research. Silva et al. found that the CEJ-ABC in the maxillary anterior region averaged 2.92 mm with the use of CBCT [24]. Similarly, Nahass reported CEJ-ABC measurements of 2.10 mm for the maxillary central incisor and 2.09 mm for the lateral incisor [38]. One potential reason for this discrepancy might be our inclusion of volunteers with healthy periodontal conditions, which result in a lower level of bone resorption being observed.

A statistically positive correlation was detected between SGH and the crown shape, gingival margin, and interdental PH. At CEJ, ABC and 2 mm apical to the ABC, taller SGH exhibited thicker GT and BT. However, at the site 4 mm apical to the ABC, no significant relationship between SGH and GT and BT was observed. Rodrigues and colleagues reported findings in alignment with ours, suggesting that the determination of thin and thick gingival phenotypes was related to the gingival landmarks at the different apico-coronal levels of assessment with respect to GM (1 and 2 mm apical to the gingival margin) and BM (1, 2, and 3 mm apical to ABC) [20]. This was in contrast to other investigations suggesting consistent GT and BT regardless of the assessment level [12]. The primary distinction between these results was the selected landmarks (gingival margin or ABC) and the depth of their apico-coronal levels. Notably, our study used the ABC as the selected landmarks and explored up to 4 mm apical to the ABC. Consequently, we observed that characteristics like taller labial SGH, wider crowns, flatter gingival margins, higher interdental PH, thicker labial GT, and BT were predominantly identified within 2 mm apical from the ABC. In terms of GM, our results matched those of Arora, who observed a strong positive correlation between the GT and the SGH [14]. Conversely, Ramírez et al. found smaller SGH in thick biotypes compared to mixed and thin periodontium [39], while Fischer demonstrated no significant link between GT and SGH. Concerning BM, it was observed that shorter SGH corresponded with thicker BT [17]. A potential explanation for this difference could be attributed to the assessment techniques used and the specific population selected for measuring the thickness of both the gingiva and the alveolar bone. Previous literature has noted that individuals with broader tooth crowns, abbreviated papillae, flatter gingival angles, and thicker gingiva were less susceptible to gingival recession [5, 40, 41]. This observation may support the hypothesis that individuals with higher SGH could contribute to enhanced resistance to periodontal attacks and increased resilience against the risk of gingival recession. CEJ-ABC is a significant factor that can contribute to periodontal attachment loss and margin recession [15, 42, 43]. This study indicated that a negative correlation between CEJ-ABC exhibited thicker GT and BT on the facial. This result was in accordance with earlier observation reported by Silva and colleagues, which showed found that taller CEJ-ABC measurements were associated with thinner GT and BT [24]. Notably, a higher CEJ-ABC heightens the risk of gingival recession. Consequently, for anterior implant restorations in individuals with elevated CEJ-ABC, it might be prudent to moderately overcompensate during soft tissue augmentation procedures.

Additionally, SGH and CEJ-ABC on the buccal site displayed higher mean values than palatal SGH-p and CEJ-ABC-p, which was consistent with previous studies [12, 14]. On the palatal side, a negative correlation was observed: taller SGH and smaller CEJ-ABC corresponded with thicker gingiva at several sites, specifically at 2 and 4 mm apical to the ABC. To date, previous studies on the palatal PP, especially in the anterior aesthetic region, have been limited. The limited attention might be attributed to the less obvious aesthetic role of the palatal site. However, a comprehensive understanding of PP is imperative in modern aesthetic restorations. In the context of the biologically oriented preparation technique (BOPT), both labial and palatal periodontal tissues should be considered to avoid infringing on the biological width. Such infringements could lead to gingival inflammation and subsequent restoration failure. Therefore, deepening our knowledge of the palatal periodontal characteristics is crucial.

Another important finding was that considering angular metric, SGH exhibited a significant positive correlation with GA and PA, while there was a negative correlation with PH on the buccal side. Conversely, there was also a significant negative correlation between CEJ-ABC and GA, PA, BMA, and IBA. This finding matched those observed in earlier studies where the GA of a thin biotype appeared smaller, and its gingival margin was more curved compared to its thicker counterpart [28, 44, 45]. Various investigations demonstrated that a thicker gingival phenotype often correlated with wider tooth crowns and more robust, shorter gingival papilla [46‐50]. The contour of gingival margin is primarily influenced by parameters like GA, PW, and PH [45]. Therefore, when designing the morphology of anterior implant restorations, SGTDs was a critical factor in guiding the aesthetic contour of the gingival margin. In terms of soft tissue angles (GA, BMA, PA, and IBA), there was a positive correlation with hard tissue counterparts (PH and IBH). Thus, we speculated that it was reasonable to postulate that future investigations could perceive periodontal tissues and the underlying bone as an integrated gingiva-osseous complex, collaboratively fortifying against periodontal adversities. Regarding IBH, Becker and colleagues conducted a comprehensive analysis of alveolar bone anatomical profiles using dry skulls, providing valuable insights into alveolar bone structure [51]. They reported IBH based on bone anatomic morphotypes (flat: 2.1±0.51 mm; scallop: 2.8±0.56 mm; and pronounced scalloped: 4.1±0.60 mm). In contrast, our study observed IBH values of 2.63 ± 0.48 mm, indicating a slight difference compared to the measurement reported by Becker et al. This disparity can be attributed to both differences in the studied populations and variations in research methodologies. Furthermore, tooth type exhibited a strong correlation with SGH and CEJ-ABC on either the buccal or palatal side. Central incisors exhibited the highest mean values of SGH (3.46 ± 0.58 mm) whereas canines presented the highest CEJ-ABC-p (1.06 ± 0.30 mm) and SGH-p (3.21 ± 0.54 mm). This result was in contrast with previous studies that reported no statistical significance in the median values of SGH between central incisors (3.00 ± 1.20 mm), lateral incisors (3.00 ± 0.90 mm) and canines (3.00 ± 1.00 mm) on the buccal and palatal sites [14]. This inconsistency may be attributed to the chosen statistical value and measurement methods.

Despite the meticulous design of the experiment, there are still some limitations to this study. To begin with, our focus was solely on the maxillary anterior teeth. As a result, there is a need for future research to include other teeth types like premolars, molars, and those in the mandibular arch. Additionally, the interproximal SGTDs were omitted from our study. Another point to consider is that our study subjects were aged between 18 and 25 and of Han nationality. Hence, it was unsure whether our results were applicable to other groups, raising questions about the applicability of our findings to broader populations. It would be valuable for future studies to encompass middle-aged and elderly participants to evaluate age-dependent variations in periodontal biotype. Lastly, our results hinted at the significance of facial data. Recognizing that aesthetic design should incorporate information on the dental arch, jawbone, and facial metrics, our research intends to further explore the association between facial metrics and PP using integrated digital methods that include CBCT, intraoral scanning and facial scanning techniques for the most harmonious aesthetic outcome.

Conclusion

Within the limitation of this cross-sectional study, the conclusions were drawn as follows:

SGTDs exhibited a correlation with other PP components, especially crown shape, gingival margin and interdental PH.

The relationship between SGTDs and gingival and bone phenotypes depended on the apico-coronal level evaluated.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Declarations

This study was conducted in full accordance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Biomedical Research Ethics Committee of Stomatology Hospital of Fujian Medical University, China (approval no.2023-24). Written informed consent was obtained from all study participants.

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Kuralt M, Fidler A. A novel computer-aided method for direct measurements and visualization of gingival margin changes. J Clin Periodontol. 2022;49:153–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13573.CrossRefPubMed

Roccuzzo M, Roccuzzo A, Ramanuskaite A. Papilla height in relation to the Distance between Bone Crest and Interproximal Contact Point at single-tooth implants: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(Suppl):50–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13116.CrossRefPubMed

Velasco BP, Rucco R, Zubizarreta-Macho Á, Montiel-Company JM, de la Vega BS, Madroño EC, Marín L, Hernández MS. Failure rate, marginal bone loss, and pink esthetic with socket-shield technique for immediate dental implant placement in the esthetic zone. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Biology-Basel. 2021;10. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10060549.

Armalaite J, Jarutiene M, Vasiliauskas A, Sidlauskas A, Svalkauskiene V, Sidlauskas M, Skarbalius G. Smile aesthetics as perceived by dental students: a cross-sectional study. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18:225. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0673-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kim DM, Bassir SH, Nguyen TT. Effect of gingival phenotype on the maintenance of periodontal health: an American academy of periodontology best evidence review. J Periodontol. 2020;91:311–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/JPER.19-0337.CrossRefPubMed

Marzadori M, Stefanini M, Sangiorgi M, Mounssif I, Monaco C, Zucchelli G. Crown lengthening and restorative procedures in the esthetic zone. Periodontol 2000. 2018;77:84–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12208.CrossRefPubMed

Zucchelli G, Sharma P, Mounssif I. Esthetics in periodontics and implantology. Periodontol 2000. 2018;77:7–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12207.CrossRefPubMed

Cook R, Lim K. Update on Perio-Prosthodontics. Dent Clin North Am. 2019;63:157–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2018.11.001.CrossRefPubMed

Bennani V, Ibrahim H, Al-Harthi L, Lyons KM. The periodontal restorative interface: esthetic considerations. Periodontol 2000. 2017;74:74–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12191.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Blatz MB, Chiche G, Bahat O, Roblee R, Coachman C, Heymann HO. Evolution of aesthetic dentistry. J Dent Res. 2019;98:1294–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034519875450.CrossRefPubMed

11.

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 Clin Periodontol. 2018;45(Suppl 20):S219–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12951.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Couso-Queiruga E, Barboza EP, Avila-Ortiz G, Gonzalez-Martin O, Chambrone L, Rodrigues DM. Relationship between supracrestal soft tissue dimensions and other periodontal phenotypic features: a cross-sectional study. J Periodontol. 2023;94:944–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/JPER.22-0434.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Smukler H, Chaibi M. Periodontal and dental considerations in clinical crown extension: a rational basis for treatment. Int J Periodont Rest. 1997;17:464–77.

14.

Arora R, Narula SC, Sharma RK, Tewari S. Supracrestal gingival tissue: assessing relation with periodontal biotypes in a healthy periodontium. Int J Periodont Rest. 2013;33:763–71. https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.1501.CrossRef

15.

Thorbert-Mros S, Cassel B, Berglundh T. Age of onset of disease in subjects with severe periodontitis: a 9- to 34-year retrospective study. J Clin Periodontol. 2017;44:778–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12757.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Perez JR, Smukler H, Nunn ME. Clinical dimensions of the supraosseous gingivae in healthy periodontium. J Periodontol. 2008;79:2267–72. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2008.080101.CrossRefPubMed

17.

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;25:894–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12196.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Cook DR, Mealey BL, Verrett RG, Mills MP, Noujeim ME, Lasho DJ, Cronin RJ. Relationship between clinical periodontal biotype and labial plate thickness: an in vivo study. Int J Periodont Rest. 2011;31:345–54.

19.

Jennes ME, Sachse C, Flügge T, Preissner S, Heiland M, Nahles S. Gender- and age-related differences in the width of attached gingiva and clinical crown length in anterior teeth. BMC Oral Health. 2021;21:287. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01639-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Rodrigues DM, Petersen RL, de Moraes JR, Barboza EP. Gingival landmarks and cutting points for gingival phenotype determination: a clinical and tomographic cross-sectional study. J Periodontol. 2022;93:1916–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/JPER.21-0615.CrossRefPubMed

21.

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;12:709. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-04721-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

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;33:432–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12661.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Januário AL, Barriviera M, Duarte WR. Soft tissue cone-beam computed tomography: a novel method for the measurement of gingival tissue and the dimensions of the dentogingival unit. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2008;20:366–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2008.00210.x.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Silva J, Andrade PF, Sotto-Maior BS, Souza PAN, Pires CA, Devito KL. Influence of lip retraction on the cone beam computed tomography assessment of bone and gingival tissues of the anterior maxilla. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2017;123:714–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2017.02.005.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Joshi A, Suragimath G, Zope SA, Ashwinirani SR, Varma SA. Comparison of gingival biotype between different genders based on measurement of dentopapillary complex. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11:ZC40–5. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2017/30144.10575.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Zhang Y, Chen F, Kang N, Duan J, Xue F, Cai Y. Clinical and computed tomographic evaluations of periodontal phenotypes in a Chinese population: a cross-sectional study. Clin Oral Invest. 2023;27:3569–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-023-04970-y.CrossRef

27.

Kuralt M, Cmok KA, Gašperšič R, Grošelj J, Knez M, Fidler A. Gingival shape analysis using surface curvature estimation of the intraoral scans. BMC Oral Health. 2022;22:283. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-022-02322-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Yin XJ, Wei BY, Ke XP, Zhang T, Jiang MY, Luo XY, Sun HQ. Correlation between clinical parameters of crown and gingival morphology of anterior teeth and periodontal biotypes. BMC Oral Health. 2020;20:59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-020-1040-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

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. 2016;46:372–81. https://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2016.46.6.372.CrossRef

30.

Liu J, Hao J, Lin H, et al. Deep learning-enabled 3d multimodal fusion of cone-beam ct and intraoral mesh scans for clinically applicable tooth-bone reconstruction. Patterns. 2023;4:100825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2023.100825.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Xi X, Hao J, Lin Z, Wang S, Yang Z, Lan W, Artal P. Two-dimensional peripheral refraction in adults. Biomed Opt Express. 2023;14:2375–85. https://doi.org/10.1364/BOE.488098.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (strobe) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg. 2014;12:1495–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.07.013.CrossRef

33.

Michelinakis G, Apostolakis D, Tsagarakis A, Kourakis G, Pavlakis E. A comparison of accuracy of 3 intraoral scanners: a single-blinded in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124:581–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.10.023.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Jaju PP, Jaju SP. Cone-beam computed tomography: time to move from alara to alada. Imagng Sci Dent. 2015;45:263–5. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2015.45.4.263.CrossRef

35.

Li J, Zhao Z, Zheng L, Daraqel B, Liu J, Hu Y. Effects of mouth breathing on maxillofacial and airway development in children and adolescents with different cervical vertebral maturation stages: a cross-sectional study. BMC Oral Health. 2022;22:197. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-022-02234-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Guo W, Jiang Y, Zhu Y, Huang J. Effect of acdf combined with different degrees of partial resection of uncovertebral joints on cervical stability and degeneration: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2022;17:551. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-03447-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Xu T, Li X, Wang D, Zhang Y, Zhang Q, Yan J, Jiang J, Liu W, Chen J. Hand grip strength should be normalized by weight not height for eliminating the influence of individual differences: findings from a cross-sectional study of 1,511 healthy undergraduates. Front Nutr. 2022;9:1063939. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2022.1063939.CrossRefPubMed

38.

El NH. Analysis of the dimensions of the labial bone wall in the anterior maxilla: a cone-beam computed tomography study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26:e57–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12332.CrossRef

39.

Ramírez K, García-Rodríguez O, Murillo-Arocho M, Fernández-López O, Elías-Boneta AR. Dentogingival complex: dimension based on biotypes. P R Health Sci J. 2013;32:182–6.PubMed

40.

Joshi K, Baiju CS, Khashu H, Bansal S, Maheswari IB. Clinical assessment of interdental papilla competency parameters in the esthetic zone. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2017;29:270–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12307.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Liu F, Pelekos G, Jin LJ. The gingival biotype in a cohort of Chinese subjects with and without history of periodontal disease. J Periodontal Res. 2017;52:1004–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/jre.12471.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Ragghianti ZM, Chambrone D, Pasin IM, Conde MC, Pannuti CM, de Lima LA. Two-year randomized clinical trial of enamel matrix derivative treated infrabony defects: Radiographic analysis. BMC Oral Health. 2014;14:149. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-14-149.CrossRef

43.

Nieri M, Muzzi L, Cattabriga M, Rotundo R, Cairo F, Pini PG. The prognostic value of several periodontal factors measured as radiographic bone level variation: a 10-year retrospective multilevel analysis of treated and maintained periodontal patients. J Periodontol. 2002;73:1485–93. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2002.73.12.1485.CrossRefPubMed

44.

García-Cortés JO, Loyola-Rodríguez JP, Monárrez-Espino J. Gingival biotypes in Mexican students aged 17–19 years old and their associated anatomic structures, socio-demographic and dietary factors. J Oral Sci. 2019;61:156–63. https://doi.org/10.2334/josnusd.17-0370.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Yingzi X, Zhiqiang L, Peishuang W, Yimin Z, Shanqing G, Xueguan L, et al. Relationship of gingival phenotypes and faciolingual thickness, papilla height, and gingival angle in a Chinese population. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent. 2021;41:127–34. https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.4429.CrossRef

46.

Olsson M, Lindhe J. Periodontal characteristics in individuals with varying form of the upper central incisors. J Clin Periodontol. 1991;18:78–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051x.1991.tb01124.x.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Olsson M, Lindhe J, Marinello CP. On the relationship between crown form and clinical features of the gingiva in adolescents. J Clin Periodontol. 1993;20:570–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051x.1993.tb00773.x.CrossRefPubMed

48.

Stellini E, Comuzzi L, Mazzocco F, Parente N, Gobbato L. Relationships between different tooth shapes and patient’s periodontal phenotype. J Periodontal Res. 2013;48:657–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/jre.12057.CrossRefPubMed

49.

Alhajj WA. Gingival phenotypes and their relation to age, gender and other risk factors. BMC Oral Health. 2020;20:87. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-020-01073-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

50.

Zhong C, Yingzi X, Zhiqiang L, Peishuang W, Yimin Z, Shanqing G, et al. Analysis of crown morphology and gingival shape in the maxillary anterior dentition. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent. 2020;40:925–31. https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.4696.CrossRef

51.

Becker W, Ochsenbein C, Tibbetts L, Becker BE. Alveolar bone anatomic profiles as measured from dry skulls. Clinical ramifications. J Clin Peropdontol. 1997;24(10):727–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051x.1997.tb00189.CrossRef

Titel: Assessment of the correlation between supracrestal gingival tissue dimensions and other periodontal phenotypes components via the digital registration method: a cross‑sectional study in a Chinese population
verfasst von: Kaijin Lin
Siyi Wang
Xiaofeng Xu
Lu Yu
Rui Pan
Minqian Zheng
Jin Yang
Jianbin Guo
Publikationsdatum: 01.12.2024
Verlag: BioMed Central
Erschienen in: BMC Oral Health / Ausgabe 1/2024
Elektronische ISSN: 1472-6831
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04158-0

Update Zahnmedizin

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Assessment of the correlation between supracrestal gingival tissue dimensions and other periodontal phenotypes components via the digital registration method: a cross‑sectional study in a Chinese population

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Supplementary Information

Publisher’s Note

Background

Methods

Ethical considerations

Study design and population

Data acquisition

Clinical parameters and measurement

Statistical analysis

Sample size calculation

Results

Mean SGH and CEJ-ABC at different genders and tooth types

Correlation analysis between SGTDs (SGH and CEJ-ABC) and other PP

Correlation analysis between GM and BM

Discussion

Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Declarations

Competing interests

Publisher’s Note

Electronic supplementary material

Neu im Fachgebiet Zahnmedizin

„Übersichtlicher Wegweiser“: Lauterbachs umstrittener Klinik-Atlas ist online

Klinikreform soll zehntausende Menschenleben retten

Darf man die Behandlung eines Neonazis ablehnen?

Ein Drittel der jungen Ärztinnen und Ärzte erwägt abzuwandern

Update Zahnmedizin

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Supplementary Information

Publisher’s Note

Background

Methods

Ethical considerations

Study design and population

Data acquisition

Clinical parameters and measurement

Statistical analysis

Sample size calculation

Results

Mean SGH and CEJ-ABC at different genders and tooth types

Correlation analysis between SGTDs (SGH and CEJ-ABC) and other PP

Correlation analysis between GM and BM

Discussion

Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Consent for publication

Competing interests

Publisher’s Note

Electronic supplementary material

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2024

Two-year clinical and radiographic evaluation of ACTIVA BioACTIVE versus Compomer (Dyract® eXtra) in the restoration of class-2 cavities of primary molars: a non-inferior split-mouth randomised clinical trial

Influence of alveolar bone thickness and bucco-palatal inclination on root resorption of lateral incisors in unilateral maxillary impacted canines: a retrospective observational study

Challenges to conducting research on oral health with older adults living in long-term care facilities

Association between DMFT and primary headaches: a study based on the Rafsanjan cohort study

Effect of surface treatment and resin cement type on the bond strength of polyetheretherketone to lithium disilicate ceramic

Association between age, gender, and oral traumatic ulcerative lesions: a retrospective study

Neu im Fachgebiet Zahnmedizin

„Übersichtlicher Wegweiser“: Lauterbachs umstrittener Klinik-Atlas ist online

Klinikreform soll zehntausende Menschenleben retten

Darf man die Behandlung eines Neonazis ablehnen?

Ein Drittel der jungen Ärztinnen und Ärzte erwägt abzuwandern

Update Zahnmedizin