Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

Korean Academy of Periodontology (대한치주과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Association of gingival biotype with the results of scaling and root planing

  • Sin, Yeon-Woo (Department of Periodontology, Wonkwang University School of Dentistry) ;
  • Chang, Hee-Yung (Department of Periodontology, Wonkwang University School of Dentistry) ;
  • Yun, Woo-Hyuk (Department of Periodontology, Wonkwang University School of Dentistry) ;
  • Jeong, Seong-Nyum (Department of Periodontology, Wonkwang University School of Dentistry) ;
  • Pi, Sung-Hee (Department of Periodontology, Wonkwang University School of Dentistry) ;
  • You, Hyung-Keun (Department of Periodontology, Wonkwang University School of Dentistry)
  • Received : 2013.06.28
  • Accepted : 2013.10.02
  • Published : 2013.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The concept of gingival biotype has been used as a predictor of periodontal therapy outcomes since the 1980s. In the present study, prospective and controlled experiments were performed to compare periodontal pocket depth (PPD) reduction and gingival shrinkage (GSH) after scaling and root planing (SRP) according to gingival biotype. Methods: Twenty-five patients diagnosed with chronic periodontitis participated in the present study. The PPD and GSH of the labial side of the maxillary anterior teeth (from the right canine to the left canine) were evaluated at baseline and 3 months after SRP. Changes in the PPD following SRP were classified into 4 groups according to the gingival thickness and initial PPD. Two more groups representing normal gingival crevices were added in evaluation of the GSH. The results were statistically analyzed using the independent t-test. Results: In the end, 16 patients participated in the present study. With regard to PPD reduction, there were no significant differences according to gingival biotype (P>0.05). Likewise, sites with a PPD of over 3 mm failed to show any significant differences in the GSH (P>0.05). However, among the sites with a PPD of under 3 mm, those with the thin gingival biotype showed more GSH (P<0.05). Conclusions: PPD changes after SRP were not affected by gingival biotype with either shallow or deep periodontal pockets. GSH also showed equal outcomes in all the groups without normal gingival crevices. The results of SRP seem not to differ according to gingival biotype.

Keywords

References

  1. Seibert J, Lindhe J. Esthetics and periodontal therapy. In: Lindhe J. Textbook of clinical periodontology. 2nd ed. Copenhagen: Munksgaard; 1989. p.477-514.
  2. Muller HP, Eger T. Gingival phenotypes in young male adults. J Clin Periodontol 1997;24:65-71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1997.tb01186.x
  3. 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
  4. Pontoriero R, Carnevale G. Surgical crown lengthening: a 12-month clinical wound healing study. J Periodontol 2001;72:841-8. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2001.72.7.841
  5. 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
  6. Weisgold AS. Contours of the full crown restoration. Alpha Omegan 1977;70:77-89.
  7. Romeo E, Lops D, Rossi A, Storelli S, Rozza R, Chiapasco M. Surgical and prosthetic management of interproximal region with single-implant restorations: 1-year prospective study. J Periodontol 2008;79:1048-55. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2008.070431
  8. Baldi C, Pini-Prato G, Pagliaro U, Nieri M, Saletta D, Muzzi L, et al. Coronally advanced flap procedure for root coverage. Is flap thickness a relevant predictor to achieve root coverage?: a 19-case series. J Periodontol 1999;70:1077-84. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1999.70.9.1077
  9. Lindhe J, Westfelt E, Nyman S, Socransky SS, Heijl L, Bratthall G. Healing following surgical/non-surgical treatment of periodontal disease: a clinical study. J Clin Periodontol 1982;9:115-28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1982.tb01227.x
  10. Stahl SS, Slavkin HC, Yamada L, Levine S. Speculations about gingival repair. J Periodontol 1972;43:395-402. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1972.43.7.395
  11. Badersten A, Nilveus R, Egelberg J. Effect of nonsurgical periodontal therapy: I. Moderately advanced periodontitis. J Clin Periodontol 1981;8:57-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1981.tb02024.x
  12. Badersten A, Nilveus R, Egelberg J. Effect of nonsurgical periodontal therapy: II. Severely advanced periodontitis. J Clin Periodontol 1984;11:63-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1984.tb01309.x
  13. Fu JH, Lee A, Wang HL. Influence of tissue biotype on implant esthetics. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:499-508.
  14. Fredsen, A. Mechanical oral hygiene practices. In: Loe H, Kleinman DV, editors. Dental plaque control measures and oral hygiene practices: proceedings from a state-of-the-science workshop. Oxford: IRL Press; 1986. p.93-116.
  15. Claffey N, Shanley D. Relationship of gingival thickness and bleeding to loss of probing attachment in shallow sites following nonsurgical periodontal therapy. J Clin Periodontol 1986;13:654-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1986.tb00861.x
  16. Cosyn J, Hooghe N, De Bruyn H. A systematic review on the frequency of advanced recession following single immediate implant treatment. J Clin Periodontol 2012;39:582-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2012.01888.x
  17. Cosyn J, De Bruyn H, Cleymaet R. Soft tissue preservation and pink aesthetics around single immediate implant restorations: a 1-year prospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2013;15:847-57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2012.00448.x
  18. Cosyn J, Eghbali A, De Bruyn H, Dierens M, De Rouck T. Single implant treatment in healing versus healed sites of the anterior maxilla: an aesthetic evaluation. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14:517-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00300.x
  19. Chou CH, Mo JJ, Si MS, Gu YX, Du J, Zhang ZY, et al. Papilla alteration in different gingival biotypes at single implant-supported restoration in anterior maxilla. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue 2012;21:541-5.
  20. De Rouck T, Eghbali R, Collys K, De Bruyn H, Cosyn J. The gingival biotype revisited: transparency of the periodontal probe through the gingival margin as a method to discriminate thin from thick gingiva. J Clin Periodontol 2009;36:428-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2009.01398.x
  21. Anderegg CR, Metzler DG, Nicoll BK. Gingiva thickness in guided tissue regeneration and associated recession at facial furcation defects. J Periodontol 1995;66:397-402. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1995.66.5.397
  22. Zigdon H, Machtei EE. The dimensions of keratinized mucosa around implants affect clinical and immunological parameters. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:387-92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01492.x
  23. Aimetti M, Massei G, Morra M, Cardesi E, Romano F. Correlation between gingival phenotype and Schneiderian membrane thickness. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:1128-32.
  24. Cook DR, Mealey BL, Verrett RG, Mills MP, Noujeim ME, Lasho DJ, et al. Relationship between clinical periodontal biotype and labial plate thickness: an in vivo study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2011;31:345-54.
  25. Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Umezu K, Kois JC. Dimensions of peri-implant mucosa: an evaluation of maxillary anterior single implants in humans. J Periodontol 2003;74:557-62. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2003.74.4.557
  26. Greenberg J, Laster L, Listgarten MA. Transgingival probing as a potential estimator of alveolar bone level. J Periodontol 1976;47:514-7. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1976.47.9.514
  27. Muller HP, Barrieshi-Nusair KM, Kononen E. Repeatability of ultrasonic determination of gingival thickness. Clin Oral Investig 2007;11:439-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-007-0125-0
  28. Kan JY, Morimoto T, Rungcharassaeng K, Roe P, Smith DH. Gingival biotype assessment in the esthetic zone: visual versus direct measurement. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2010;30237-43.
  29. Eger T, Muller HP, Heinecke A. Ultrasonic determination of gingival thickness. Subject variation and influence of tooth type and clinical features. J Clin Periodontol 1996;23:839-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1996.tb00621.x

Cited by

  1. Gingival Harmony in Anterior Aesthetic Restorations vol.2, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3390/dj2040155
  2. Six Month Clinical Evaluation of Interdental Papilla Reconstruction with Injectable Hyaluronic Acid Gel Using an Image Analysis System vol.28, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12216
  3. An evaluation of the gingival biotype and the width of keratinized gingiva in the mandibular anterior region of individuals with different dental malocclusion groups and levels of crowding vol.47, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2017.47.3.176
  4. Accuracy of periodontal probe visibility in the assessment of gingival thickness vol.50, pp.None, 2013, https://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2003880194
  5. Clinical evaluation of impact of periodontal phenotype on the outcome of open flap debridement in patients with chronic periodontitis: A comparative interventional study vol.92, pp.8, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1002/jper.19-0668