ArticleBMC oral health2024
A comparative study of the application of three digital imaging techniques to assess the thickness of the palatal mucosa of the maxillary anterior teeth.
Article in BMC oral health, 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.
- Clinical outcomes of free gingival graft, xenogeneic collagen matrix, and acellular dermal matrix for peri-implant keratinized mucosa augmentation: a randomized controlled trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Modified vascularized interpositional periosteal connective tissue graft versus xenogeneic collagen matrix for soft tissue augmentation around implant in esthetic zone (A comparative Study).BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- Ultrasound-based assessment of peri-implant mucosal thickness: an ex vivo comparative study with artificial intelligence-assisted image analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Evaluation of palatal mucosal thickness in maxillary posterior teeth using cone-beam computed tomography combined with intraoral scanning: a cross-sectional study on correlating factors.BMC oral health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study highlights the need for precise and efficient methods to measure palatal mucosal thickness in the maxillary anterior teeth, particularly for soft tissue augmentation in the aesthetic zone. The research evaluates three digital imaging techniques, suggesting that Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) combined with intraoral scanners (IOS) is a promising approach for reliable clinical assessment.
methodsTen volunteers with healthy periodontium were selected, and three methods were employed: CBCT-based indirect gingival imaging, modified soft tissue CBCT (ST-CBCT), and CBCT combined with IOS. Measurements of palatal mucosal thickness were taken at multiple points along the palatal gingival margin. Statistical analysis included Bland-Altman plots for method agreement and intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) analysis for reliability. All measurements were standardized, repeated for consistency, and accurate to 0.01 mm to ensure reliability.
resultsThe Bland-Altman plots showed that less than 5% of the points for palatal mucosal thickness differences measured by the gingival indirect radiographic method, modified ST-CBCT, and CBCT combined with IOS were located outside the 95% limits of agreement (LoA). The mean value of the differences was within 0.2 mm, indicating good clinical agreement among the three methods. The inter- and intra-study ICC values for palatal mucosal thickness measurements of the maxillary anterior teeth using the three CBCT methods were greater than 0.75 (P < 0.001), demonstrating reproducibility.
conclusionsBased on the evaluation of three digital imaging techniques, this study indicates that the combination of CBCT with IOS is a feasible method for measuring palatal mucosal thickness in the maxillary anterior teeth and demonstrates good reproducibility.
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.