ArticleNational journal of maxillofacial surgery
Which method is most suitable for assessing the relationship between gingival thickness and bone thickness measurements in maxillary anterior teeth?
Article in National journal of maxillofacial surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is an objective approach for determining the thickness of both soft and hard tissues, while digital intraoral scanner (DIS) is the most advanced method for evaluating the surface of soft tissues. The periodontal biotype, which includes gingival thickness, width, and alveolar bone morphology, is fundamental for clinicians to understand how the periodontium responds to physical, chemical, or bacterial stress, or during procedures like periodontal surgeries, implants, and orthodontics. Objective: This study aims to identify the differences among the three methods for evaluating the hard and soft tissues in the maxillary anterior region in individuals with a healthy systemic condition and free from any dental defects. Materials and Methods: The datasets from the 20 patients who fulfilled the study criteria, obtained from the scans, were saved in CBCT format and DIS format and subsequently analyzed using three different methods: M1 was applied using Galileos software version 1.8; M2 was utilized on Ondema 3D software version 2022; M3 combined DIS with CBCT using 3Shape software version 2.0. Results: When considering the central incisors at three positions 2 mm, 4 mm, and 6 mm below the cementoenamel junction, the pairwise comparison of palate gingival thickness of each pair all show no statistically significant ( Conclusion: The combination of DISs and CBCT has not been proven to provide higher accuracy, despite its more complex technique. The direct measurement method using CBCT data remains a reliable tool for assessing both soft and hard tissues.
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.