ArticleClinical oral investigations2024
Assessment of gingival translucency at the mandibular incisors with two different probing systems. A cross sectional study.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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.
- Interdental Papilla Morphology in Relation to Periodontal Soft- and Hard-Tissue Dimensions in Young Adults: A Clinical and CBCT-Based Cross-Sectional Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of transmucosal probe visualization for peri-implant mucosal phenotype assessment: A cross-sectional study.Journal of periodontology · 2026Article
- Comparison of Qualitative and Quantitative Methods for Gingival Thickness Assessment: Color-Coded Probe Versus Ultrasound Measurements.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Methodological Validation of the PIROP Ultrasound-Based System for Measuring Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Thickness in a Clinical Setting.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIncreasing evidence indicates that the thickness of periodontal soft tissues plays an important role in various clinical scenarios, thus pointing to the need of further clinical research in this area. Aim of the present study was to assess gingival thickness at the mandibular incisors by translucency judgement with two different probes and to validate if these methods are comparable and applicable as diagnostic tools. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 200 participants were included; gingival tissue thickness was measured by judging probe translucency at both central mandibular incisors, mid-facially on the buccal aspect of each tooth using a standard periodontal probe and a set of color-coded probe, each with a different color at the tip, i.e. Colorvue Biotype Probe (CBP). Frequencies and relative frequencies were calculated for probe visibility. Agreement between the standard periodontal probe and the CBP was evaluated via the kappa statistic.
resultsWhen the periodontal probe was visible, the frequency of CBP being visible was very high. Kappa statistic for the agreement between the standard periodontal probe and the CBP was 0.198 (71.5% agreement; p-value < 0.001) for tooth 41 and 0.311 (74.0% agreement; p-value < 0.001) for tooth 31, indicating a positive association of the two methods.
conclusionsAn agreement that reached 74% was estimated between the standard periodontal probe and the color-coded probe at central mandibular incisors. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In the context of the present study, the two methods of evaluating gingival thickness seem to produce comparable measurements with a substantial agreement. However, in the 1/4 of the cases, the visibility of the color-coded probe could not assist in the categorization of the gingival phenotype.
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.