Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 23, 2025
A Novel Approach to Monitoring Graft Neovascularization in the Human Gingiva
Published on: January 12, 2019
[Gingival thickness assessment of gingival recession teeth]
Z Y Chen1, J S Zhong2, X Y Ouyang2
1Second Clinical Division, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Beijing 100101, China.
Objective:
To evaluate the gingival thickness and gingival biotype of gingival recession teeth of Chinese population.
Methods:
A total of 112 non-molar teeth with gingival recession in 34 patients were included. Direct measurement, cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) measurement and periodontal probe method were used to evaluate gingival thickness and biotype. Gingival thickness was measured at 2 mm apical to the gingival margin. Direct measurement was performed with a caliper of 0.01 mm resolution and anesthesia needles attached to silicone disk stops. Gingival biotype was assessed by sulcus probing, if the periodontal probe was visible through the gingival tissue, the gingival biotype was thin; If not visible, the gingival biotype was thick. The differences of gingival thickness among different gingival biotype, tooth site and gingival recession type were analyzed respectively. Besides, the results of CBCT measurement was analyzed compared with the direct measurement.
Results:
The average gingival thickness of non-molar recession teeth was (1.17±0.41) mm. The average gingival thickness of thick and thin biotype group were (1.38±0.4) mm and (0.97±0.30) mm, respectively, with statistically significant difference (P<0.001). The median of gingival thickness was 1.1 mm. Using 1.1 mm as the cut-off value of thick and thin gingival thickness group, the results matched well with the gingival biotype classification results by periodontal probe method (P=1.000). The average gingival thickness of maxillary teeth was significantly thicker than that of the mandibular teeth. They were (1.39±3.44) mm and (1.01±0.31) mm, respectively (P<0.001). The mean gingival thickness of MillerI, II and III degree gingival recession teeth were (1.15±0.34) mm, (0.83±0.17) mm and (1.26±0.56) mm, respectively, without statistically significant difference (P=0.205). The gingival thickness measurement results between CBCT method and direct measurement were without statistically significant difference (P=0.206).
Conclusion:
In the non-molar gingival recession teeth, the cut-off value of gingival thickness to classify thick and thin biotype of Chinese population was 1.1 mm. The average gingival thickness of the maxillary teeth was significantly thicker than that of the mandibular teeth. Besides, CBCT measurement was an accuracy method for evaluating facial gingival thickness.
