Trial reportHead & face medicine2024
Clinical efficacy of intraoral ultrasonography versus transgingival probing for measurement of gingival thickness in different gingival biotypes: a clinical trial.
Trial report in Head & face medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gingival phenotype assessment: a comparative study of a novel CBCT-based measurement technique and transgingival probing.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Ultrasound-based assessment of peri-implant mucosal thickness: an ex vivo comparative study with artificial intelligence-assisted image analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- In vitro comparison of high-resolution USG, CBCT, and direct measurements of periodontal defects.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2025Article
- Patient centered comparative evaluation of injectable platelet concentrate with or without micro-needling in the management of thin gingival phenotype: A randomized clinical trial.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTransgingival probing is conventionally used for gingival thickness (GT) measurement. However, invasiveness is a major drawback of transgingival probing. Thus, researchers have been in search of alternative methods for measurement of GT. This study compared the clinical efficacy of intraoral ultrasonography and transgingival probing for measurement of GT in different biotypes. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis clinical trial was conducted on 34 patients requiring crown lengthening surgery. GT was measured at 40 points with 2- and 4-mm distances from the free gingival margin (FGM) of anterior and premolar teeth of both jaws in each patient by an intraoral ultrasound probe. For measurement of GT by the transgingival probing method, infiltration anesthesia was induced, and a #25 finger spreader (25 mm) was vertically inserted into the soft tissue until contacting bone. The inserted length was measured by a digital caliper with 0.01 mm accuracy. All measurements were made by an operator with high reliability under the supervision of a radiologist. Data were analyzed by t-test, Power and Effect Size formula, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
resultsThe two methods were significantly different in measurement of GT in both thick and thin biotypes at 2- and 4-mm distances (P < 0.001). The two methods had a significant difference in both the mandible (P < 0.001) and maxilla (P < 0.001) and in both the anterior (P < 0.003) and premolar (P < 0.003) regions. Although the difference was statistically significant in t-tests, the power and effect formula proved it to be clinically insignificant. Also, the ICC of the two methods revealed excellent agreement.
conclusionThe results showed optimal agreement of ultrasound and transgingival probing for measurement of GT.
trial registrationThe study was approved by the ethics committee of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences on 2021-12-28 (IR.SBMU.DRC.REC.1400.138) and registered in the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials on 2022-03-14 (IRCT20211229053566N1).
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.