Submitted: 08 Jul 2019
Accepted: 08 Jul 2019
ePublished: 08 Jul 2019
EndNote EndNote

(Enw Format - Win & Mac)

BibTeX BibTeX

(Bib Format - Win & Mac)

Bookends Bookends

(Ris Format - Mac only)

EasyBib EasyBib

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Medlars Medlars

(Txt Format - Win & Mac)

Mendeley Web Mendeley Web
Mendeley Mendeley

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Papers Papers

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

ProCite ProCite

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Reference Manager Reference Manager

(Ris Format - Win only)

Refworks Refworks

(Refworks Format - Win & Mac)

Zotero Zotero

(Ris Format - Firefox Plugin)

J Iran Dent Assoc. 2019;31(2): 64-68.
  Abstract View: 19

Original

The Relationship Between Gingival Biotypes and Dentopapillary Complex: An Observational Study

Farzane Vaziri, Samane Abbasi, Maryam Abrishami, Amir Hossein Vatandost*
*Corresponding Author: Email: m.h.amirzade@gmail.com

Abstract

Background and Aim: Gingival biotype is a principal component in restorative and implant procedures, especially in the aesthetic region. Immediate determination of the gingival biotype by the clinician could lead to a more successful outcome, especially during implant placement in the aesthetic zone. The aim of this study was to investigate a possible relationship between gingival biotypes and gingival thickness, crown length (CL), crown width (CW), papillary height (PH), and papillary width (PW).
Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 50 subjects were selected who had all anterior teeth in the upper and lower jaws with a healthy periodontium and no attachment loss. Gingival thickness was recorded based on the transparency of a peri-odontal probe. CL, CW, PH, PW, area of the facial papilla (AP), and facial surface area of anterior teeth (AT) from canine to canine were measured and analyzed using descriptive statistics and t-test in SPSS 16.0 software.
Results: When comparing thin and thick gingival biotypes, the mean CL (8.3 mm vs. 8.76 mm; P=0.14), CW (7 mm vs. 7.25 mm; P=0.13), PH (2.86 mm vs. 2.99 mm; P=0.49), and PW (2.86 mm vs. 2.99 mm; P=0.04) were lower in the thin gingival biotype group. The AP and AT were smaller in the thin gingival biotype group but the difference with the thick gingival biotype was not significant (P=0.22 and 0.07, respectively).
Conclusion: According to the results, comparable dentopapillary dimensions can be expected in thick and thin gingival biotypes. No association was detected between the dentopapillary complex and gingival biotypes.
First Name
Last Name
Email Address
Comments
Security code


Abstract View: 20

Your browser does not support the canvas element.


PDF Download: 0

Your browser does not support the canvas element.