Relationship between Gingival Biotype and Underlying Crestal Bone Morphology

  • Lee, Kwang Ho (Department of Periodontology, Ajou University School of Medicine) ;
  • Jung, Koo Young (Department of Periodontology, Ajou University School of Medicine) ;
  • Jung, Jae-Suk (Department of Periodontology, Ajou University School of Medicine)
  • Received : 2016.10.25
  • Accepted : 2016.12.14
  • Published : 2016.12.30


Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between gingival biotype and underlying crestal bone morphology in the maxillary anterior region. Materials and Methods: The maxillary anterior teeth from 40 subjects (20 thin biotype, 20 thick biotype) with ages from 20 to 50 years were included in this study. All subjects had healthy gingiva in the maxillary anterior region and had no history of orthodontic treatment, periodontal treatment, or hyperplastic medication. Using the probe transparency method, the scalloped distance (SCD) between the contact point-bone crest and the midface-bone crest was measured for each maxillary anterior teeth of two groups. Result: The mean SCD was $3.00{\pm}0.21mm$ in thin biotype and $2.81{\pm}0.20mm$ in thick biotype. The SCD value in the thin biotype was statistically significantly greater than in the thick biotype (t=2.982, P<0.01). Comparing the degree of crestal bone scallop in each maxillary anterior teeth in the two groups, all six teeth in the thin biotype showed higher bone scallop than in the thick biotype. Conclusion: A simple procedure using a probe could to determine gingival biotype and to predict the underlying crestal bone morphology was introduced. This may be useful for effective treatment planning.


  1. Ochsenbein C, Ross S. A reevaluation of osseous surgery. Dent Clin North Am. 1969; 13: 87-102.
  2. Lindhe J. Textbook of clinical periodontology. 2nd ed. Copenhagen: Munksgaard; 1989.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Weisgold AS. Contours of the full crown restoration. Alpha Omegan. 1977; 70: 77-89.
  6. Kois JC. Predictable single tooth peri-implant esthetics: five diagnostic keys. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2001; 22: 199-206; quiz 208.
  7. Evans CD, Chen ST. Esthetic outcomes of immediate implant placements. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008; 19: 73-80.
  8. Baldi C, Pini-Prato G, Pagliaro U, Nieri M, Saletta D, Muzzi L, Cortellini P. 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.
  9. Hwang D, Wang HL. Flap thickness as a predictor of root coverage: a systematic review. J Periodontol. 2006; 77: 1625-34.
  10. Greenberg J, Laster L, Listgarten MA. Transgingival probing as a potential estimator of alveolar bone level. J Periodontol. 1976; 47: 514-7.
  11. Müller HP, Schaller N, Eger T. Ultrasonic determination of thickness of masticatory mucosa: a methodologic study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1999; 88: 248-53.
  12. Müller HP, Heinecke A, Schaller N, Eger T. Masticatory mucosa in subjects with different periodontal phenotypes. J Clin Periodontol. 2000; 27: 621-6.
  13. 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.
  14. Barriviera M, Duarte WR, Januário AL, Faber J, Bezerra AC. A new method to assess and measure palatal masticatory mucosa by cone-beam computerized tomography. J Clin Periodontol. 2009; 36: 564-8.
  15. Younes F, Eghbali A, Raes M, De Bruyckere T, Cosyn J, De Bruyn H. Relationship between buccal bone and gingival thickness revisited using noninvasive registration methods. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 27: 523-8.
  16. Müller HP, Könönen E. Variance components of gingival thickness. J Periodontal Res. 2005; 40: 239-44.
  17. Müller HP, Barrieshi-Nusair KM, Könönen E. Repeatability of ultrasonic determination of gingival thickness. Clin Oral Investig. 2007; 11: 439-42.
  18. Fu JH, Yeh CY, Chan HL, Tatarakis N, Leong DJ, Wang HL. Tissue biotype and its relation to the underlying bone morphology. J Periodontol. 2010; 81: 569-74.
  19. Becker W, Ochsenbein C, Tibbetts L, Becker BE. Alveolar bone anatomic profiles as measured from dry skulls. Clinical ramifications. J Clin Periodontol. 1997; 24: 727-31.
  20. Olsson M, Lindhe J. Periodontal characteristics in individuals with varying form of the upper central incisors. J Clin Periodontol. 1991; 18: 78-82.
  21. 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.
  22. Chow YC, Eber RM, Tsao YP, Shotwell JL, Wang HL. Factors associated with the appearance of gingival papillae. J Clin Periodontol. 2010; 37: 719-27.