Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38942966›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2024

Assessment of gingival translucency at the mandibular incisors with two different probing systems. A cross sectional study.

Dimitrios Kloukos, Andrea Roccuzzo, Alexandra Staehli, George Koukos, Anton Sculean, Olga Elpis Kolokitha, Christos Katsaros

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Dimitrios KloukosDepartment of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 7, CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland. dimitrios.kloukos@unibe.ch.ORCID 0000-0002-0665-238X
Andrea RoccuzzoDepartment of Periodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Alexandra StaehliDepartment of Periodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
George KoukosDepartment of Periodontology, 251 Hellenic Air Force & VA General Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Anton SculeanDepartment of Periodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Olga Elpis KolokithaDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, School of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Christos KatsarosDepartment of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 7, CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

GingivaIncisorMandibleAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedColorvue probeGingival thicknessPeriodontal phenotypePeriodontal probe

Identifiers

PMID38942966
PMCPMC11213785

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.