ArticleBMC oral health2025
Diagnostic accuracy of a novel non-invasive digital technique for assessing gingival phenotype: an area under the curve analysis.
Article 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 3 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
3 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
- Predictors of gingival margin migration after fixed orthodontic treatment: a linear mixed model analysis of labial and lingual surfaces.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- A novel classification of periodontal phenotype integrating hard and soft tissue parameters using data-driven clustering.Clinical oral investigations · 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
backgroundGingival phenotype (GP) significantly influences periodontal health and treatment outcomes. Traditional methods for assessing GP, using gingival thickness (GT) alone, may lack sufficient accuracy for reliable GP classification. The present study aims to introduce and validate a novel non-invasive digital GP assessment measuring digital GT (dGT) and digital keratinized tissue width (dKTW). The primary objective is to assess the diagnostic performance of digital gingival phenotype (dGP) in distinguishing between thick and thin phenotypes.
methodsThis prospective, cross-sectional study was conducted at the Periodontology Department of Istanbul University-Cerrahpaşa, Turkey, from October to December 2024. Participants were included if they had all maxillary and mandibular anterior teeth present. Exclusion criteria included factors that could affect periodontal tissues, such as clinical attachment loss, systemic diseases (e.g., diabetes), gingival enlargement or recession, smoking, medications causing gingival hyperplasia, and melanin pigmentation. All subjects were screened for eligibility by S.K. prior to enrollment, with participants enrolled when S.K. was present at the periodontology department for preliminary examinations using a convenience sampling approach. KTW was assessed using clinical (cKTW), digital (dKTW), and rounded methods. cKTW and dKTW measured the distance between the gingival margin and mucogingival junction, while rounded KTW was calculated by rounding dKTW to the nearest whole number. GT was measured digitally in millimeters from the gingival margin level. GP was evaluated clinically (cGP) with a color-coded periodontal probe and digitally (dGP) by multiplying dKTW and dGT measurements. cKTW, dKTW, rounded KTW, dGT, and dGP are index tests, with cGP serving as the reference standard. The diagnostic accuracy of each method was evaluated using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis.
resultsOut of 348 participants, 31 met the inclusion criteria. Since each participant's 12 teeth were evaluated, a total of 372 teeth were included in the study. The area under the curve (AUC) values and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each method were as follows: dGT: 0.628 (95% CI: 0.570-0.687), cKTW: 0.730 (95% CI: 0.677-0.782), dKTW: 0.714 (95% CI: 0.661-0.767), rounded KTW: 0.710 (95% CI: 0.657-0.763), and dGP: 0.734 (95% CI: 0.683-0.785). The dGP model exhibited the highest diagnostic accuracy, while the dGT model showed the lowest.
conclusionsThe findings suggest that the digital gingival phenotype assessment provides superior diagnostic accuracy compared to other methods, achieving the highest AUC value. This demonstrates its efficacy in classifying GP and offers a reliable and accurate alternative to traditional clinical techniques for GP classification. REGISTRATION: No trial registration was performed, as no invasive procedures were conducted in this study.
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.