Trial reportClinical oral investigations2025
Evaluation of gingival phenotype: the role of gingival thickness measurements from different vertical gingival levels.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06369506 (Classification of Gingival Phenotype at Different Landmarks), which is not on this 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.
Classification of Gingival Phenotype at Different Landmarks
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Retrospective 3D analysis of gingival recession and occlusal morphology based on digital intraoral scans: an exploratory study.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Comparison of gingival phenotype among adult male naswar users, cigarette smokers and non-tobacco users: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The Clinical Significance of Attached Gingiva in the Natural Dentition.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Comparison of Qualitative and Quantitative Methods for Gingival Thickness Assessment: Color-Coded Probe Versus Ultrasound Measurements.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to accurately assess the gingival phenotype by comparing the mean gingival thickness (GT) measured at various levels with a single-point GT measurement. MATERIALS AND
methodsFifty participants were divided into thin and thick gingival phenotype groups according to two different classifications. The first classification was based on the GT measured at the base of the gingival sulcus (GT1), whereas the second classification was based on the mean of the GT (GTm) measured at the base of the gingival sulcus (GT1 point) and 1 mm apical (GT2 point) and 2 mm apical to the base of the gingival sulcus (GT3 point). The GT was measured using the transgingival method from the buccal region of 1195 teeth, including the incisors, canines, premolars, and first molars, and was statistically analyzed.
resultsThe mean GT was 0.95 ± 0.25 mm for GT1, 0.97 ± 0.3 mm for GT2, 0.81 ± 0.22 mm for GT3, and 0.91 ± 0.22 mm for the overall GTm. Good agreement was found between the GTm and GT1 and GT2 (k = 0.712; k = 0.758, p < 0.001for both), and moderate agreement was found between the GTm and GT3 (k = 0.534, p < 0.001). In both classifications, the effect of the dental arch location on the GT was found to be statistically significant.
conclusionStandardized methods are required to minimize the differences in measurements from different vertical levels, which can influence gingival phenotype classification. CLINICAL
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06369506. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Multiple gingival thickness measurements showed that gingival phenotype varied depending on the vertical level of the gingiva measurement point. Gingival phenotype assessment based on the mean of multiple gingival thickness measurements provided precise results, emphasizing the clinical importance of multiple measurements.
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.