IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i19p12276-d926926.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of the Effectiveness of the Ultrasonic Method and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Combined with Intraoral Scanning and Prosthetic-Driven Implant Planning Method in Determining the Gingival Phenotype in the Healthy Periodontium

Author

Listed:
  • Magdalena Bednarz-Tumidajewicz

    (Department of Periodontology, Specialist Outpatient Medical Clinic MEDIDENT in Gorlice, 38-300 Gorlice, Poland)

  • Aneta Furtak

    (Department of Periodontology, Specialist Outpatient Medical Clinic MEDIDENT in Gorlice, 38-300 Gorlice, Poland)

  • Aneta Zakrzewska

    (Department of Periodontology, Medical University in Wroclaw, 50-041 Wroclaw, Poland)

  • Małgorzata Rąpała

    (Department of Pediatric Surgery, Marciniak Hospital, 50-041 Wroclaw, Poland)

  • Karolina Gerreth

    (Department of Risk Group Dentistry, Chair of Pediatric Dentistry, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 60-812 Poznan, Poland)

  • Tomasz Gedrange

    (Department of Orthodontics, Carl Gustav Carus Campus, Technische Universität Dresden, D-01309 Dresden, Germany
    Department of Dental Surgery, Medical University in Wroclaw, Krakowska 26 Str., 50-425 Wroclaw, Poland)

  • Wojciech Bednarz

    (Department of Periodontology, Specialist Outpatient Medical Clinic MEDIDENT in Gorlice, 38-300 Gorlice, Poland
    Department of Periodontology, Medical University in Wroclaw, 50-041 Wroclaw, Poland)

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of two diagnostic methods: ultrasonic gingival thickness measurement (UGTM) and cone-beam computed tomography, intraoral scanning by computer-aided design technology with prosthetic-driven implant planning software (CBCT/CAD/PDIP) in determining the gingival phenotype (GP). Thirty periodontally healthy patients were examined. The ultrasonic device Pirop G ® with a frequency of 20 MHz and CBCT/CAD/PDIP were used to measure gingival thickness at upper canines and incisors in three points localized midbuccally, namely free gingival thickness (FGT), supracrestal (SGT) and crestal (CGT). Probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL) and width of keratinized tissue (WKT) were measured using periodontal probe. Intra-examiner and inter-examiner agreement and agreement between methods were evaluated using Bland-Altman analyses. Comparing both methods in the determination of SGT (bias = 0.17 mm, SD = 0.25 mm, p < 0.000) and CGT (bias = −0.45 mm, SD = 0.32 mm, p < 0.000) 95.0% and 95.6% agreement were found, respectively, and in the FGT range only 93.3% (bias = −0.45 mm, SD = 0.32 mm, p < 0.000). The presence of positive correlations between WKT and SGT was shown. A positive correlation between SGT and WKT confirms the purpose of measuring these parameters for the evaluation of the GP. Both the ultrasonic method and cone-beam computed tomography combined with intraoral scanning and prosthetic-driven implant planning method were useful in determining gingival phenotype, however, the ultrasonic method was more accurate for measuring GT.

Suggested Citation

  • Magdalena Bednarz-Tumidajewicz & Aneta Furtak & Aneta Zakrzewska & Małgorzata Rąpała & Karolina Gerreth & Tomasz Gedrange & Wojciech Bednarz, 2022. "Comparison of the Effectiveness of the Ultrasonic Method and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Combined with Intraoral Scanning and Prosthetic-Driven Implant Planning Method in Determining the Gingival Ph," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-15, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:19:p:12276-:d:926926
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/19/12276/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/19/12276/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:19:p:12276-:d:926926. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.