Observational studyBMC oral health2025
Comparison of gingival and periodontal phenotype classification methods and phenotype-related clinical parameters: cross-sectional observational study.
Observational study in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 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
- Agreement Between Cone Beam Computed Tomography, Bone Sounding, Pulse-Echo Ultrasound, and Caliper Measurements for Gingival Thickness Assessment: A Method-Comparison Study.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Gingival phenotype assessment: a comparative study of a novel CBCT-based measurement technique and transgingival probing.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Comparison of gingival phenotype among adult male naswar users, cigarette smokers and non-tobacco users: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A novel classification of periodontal phenotype integrating hard and soft tissue parameters using data-driven clustering.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Gingival phenotypes and dimensions of the soft periodontal tissues: a cross-sectional clinical and histological study.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Salivary Biomarkers in Periodontal Disease: Revolutionizing Early Detection and Precision Dentistry.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2025Review
- Clinical-oriented 3D visualization and quantitative analysis of gingival thickness using convolutional neural networks and CBCT.Frontiers in dental medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to assess gingival and periodontal-phenotype by using Standard-Periodontal-Probing (SPP), Colored-Periodontal-Probing (CPP), and Cone-Beam-Computed-Tomography (CBCT) in comparison to gold standard transgingival-probing.
methodsGingival-thickness of the maxillary anterior incisors and canines of 30 healthy individuals (6 teeth of each individual) was evaluated by transgingival-probing, SPP, CPP, and CBCT methods. The relationship between thin and thick phenotype and phenotypic parameters such as age, gender, Keratinized-Tissue-Width (KTW), and Buccal-Bone-Thickness (BBT) was tested with the Chi-square test, and the differences between the measurements were tested with the Mann-Whitney U test. Gingival-thickness, BBT, and related phenotypic parameters were measured from three buccal points (marginal-middle-apical) of each tooth, and Spearman-Rho Correlation Analysis was performed. Pearson chi-square and McNemar tests were used to assess the distribution of categorical data. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy levels and kappa statistics were calculated for each method. Intra/interobserver agreement was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient. The significance level was set at p < 0.05.
resultsThere was no statistically significant difference for gingival-phenotype according to age and gender (p > 0.05). Higher KTW values were measured in areas with thick gingival-phenotype (p:0.008). The highest agreement in terms of detecting gingival-phenotype was found between transgingival-probing and CBCT (p < 0.01). All methods were found to be more accurate in the determination of thin phenotype (p < 0.01). Marginal gingival-thickness measurements were higher than those of middle and apical measurements (p < 0.01), and middle BBT measurements were higher than those of apical measurements (p < 0.01). Gingival-thickness measured by transgingival-probing and CBCT showed a significant correlation (p < 0.01). KTW was significantly correlated with BBT and marginal gingival-thickness (p < 0.01).
conclusionsThin or thick phenotype is associated with different apical-coronal points and KTW. The CBCT method was found to be helpful in determining gingival and periodontal-phenotype. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Available CBCT images can be used to take precautions and assess prognosis before implant placement and orthodontic treatment. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.