Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 22, 2026
Isolation, Processing and Analysis of Murine Gingival Cells
Published on: July 2, 2013
Comparison of gingival and periodontal phenotype classification methods and phenotype-related clinical parameters:
Dila İrem Aşkın1, Mahmure Ayşe Tayman2, Berrin Çelik3
1Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Ankara, Turkey.
Background:
The aim of this study was to assess gingival and periodontal-phenotype by using Standard-Periodontal-Probing (SPP), Colored-Periodontal-Probing (CPP), and Cone-Beam-Computed-Tomography (CBCT) in comparison to gold standard transgingival-probing.
Methods:
Gingival-thickness of the maxillary anterior incisors and canines of 30 healthy individuals (6 teeth of each individual) was evaluated by transgingival-probing, SPP, CPP, and CBCT methods. The relationship between thin and thick phenotype and phenotypic parameters such as age, gender, Keratinized-Tissue-Width (KTW), and Buccal-Bone-Thickness (BBT) was tested with the Chi-square test, and the differences between the measurements were tested with the Mann-Whitney U test. Gingival-thickness, BBT, and related phenotypic parameters were measured from three buccal points (marginal-middle-apical) of each tooth, and Spearman-Rho Correlation Analysis was performed. Pearson chi-square and McNemar tests were used to assess the distribution of categorical data. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy levels and kappa statistics were calculated for each method. Intra/interobserver agreement was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient. The significance level was set at p < 0.05.
Results:
There was no statistically significant difference for gingival-phenotype according to age and gender (p > 0.05). Higher KTW values were measured in areas with thick gingival-phenotype (p:0.008). The highest agreement in terms of detecting gingival-phenotype was found between transgingival-probing and CBCT (p < 0.01). All methods were found to be more accurate in the determination of thin phenotype (p < 0.01). Marginal gingival-thickness measurements were higher than those of middle and apical measurements (p < 0.01), and middle BBT measurements were higher than those of apical measurements (p < 0.01). Gingival-thickness measured by transgingival-probing and CBCT showed a significant correlation (p < 0.01). KTW was significantly correlated with BBT and marginal gingival-thickness (p < 0.01).
Conclusions:
Thin or thick phenotype is associated with different apical-coronal points and KTW. The CBCT method was found to be helpful in determining gingival and periodontal-phenotype.
Clinical Relevance:
Available CBCT images can be used to take precautions and assess prognosis before implant placement and orthodontic treatment.
Clinical Trial Number:
Not applicable.
