ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Comparative Evaluation of the Accuracy of Gingival Thickness Measurement by Clinical Evaluation and Intraoral Ultrasonography.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Qualitative and Quantitative Methods for Gingival Thickness Assessment: Color-Coded Probe Versus Ultrasound Measurements.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Gingival Thickness Improvement After Atelocollagen Injection-Retrospective Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Gingival phenotypes and dimensions of the soft periodontal tissues: a cross-sectional clinical and histological study.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- In vitro comparison of high-resolution USG, CBCT, and direct measurements of periodontal defects.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2025Article
- Innovative 3D-printed educational models for vital pulp treatments and local anesthesia training in pediatric dentistry.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Obsessive-compulsive symptoms and traits in patients with burning mouth syndrome: a cross-sectional multicentric analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Differences Between Two Devices With Function of Periopolishing and Piezoelectric Scaler: A Randomized Clinical Trial.International journal of dentistry · 2025Article
- Digital photometric analysis as a non-invasive method to determine gingival phenotype: A comparative study.The Saudi dental journal · 2024Article
- Soft Tissue Retraction Maneuver in Cone Beam Computed Tomography Prior to Crown-Lengthening Procedure-A Technical Note.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Review
- Comparative evaluation of microneedling with Vitamin C and Vitamin C alone in the management of thin gingival phenotype: A split-mouth randomized clinical trial.Journal of Indian Society of PeriodontologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the accuracy of gingival thickness measurement by two methods of clinical evaluation and intraoral ultrasonography. The gingival thickness was measured in the midbuccal area of the right maxillary lateral incisor and first molar teeth in 30 individuals. For clinical measurement, a #15 K-file with rubber stops was vertically inserted 2 mm apical to the gingival margin and the length of the file in the tissue was measured using a digital caliper. Ultrasonographic measurement was performed using an intraoral probe on the gingival surface in the midbuccal area, at the entry point of the file. Statistical analysis was performed by paired t-test, correlation coefficient, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (α = 0.05). In the anterior region, the mean gingival thicknesses using ultrasonography (1.517 ± 0.293 mm) and clinical evaluation (1.610 ± 0.272 mm) were not significantly different (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.