ArticleJournal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry2026
Evaluation of gingival biotype and bone thickness in maxillary implant patients: A clinical study based on cone-beam computed tomography.
Article in Journal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The relationship between gingival biotype (GB) and bone thickness is paramount for optimal maxillary implant outcomes. This study aimed to determine the correlation between GB and buccal bone thickness (BBT) and buccal bone height (BBH) in candidates for immediate maxillary implant placement using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Methods: This cross-sectional study assessed 54 patients from the Periodontology Department at Ilam University of Medical Sciences Dental School. Gingival thickness (GT), buccal bone measurements (BBT and BBH), and clinical parameters, including keratinized gingival width (KGW) and papillary height (PH), were recorded using Michigan probes and CBCT scans. Statistical analyses (Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests) were conducted to evaluate associations between variables, with Results: Of the participants, 62.96% had a thick GB and 37.04% had a thin GB. Thin biotypes were significantly more prevalent among females ( Conclusion: A thick gingival biotype is anatomically associated with greater buccal bone thickness and keratinized gingival width. However, there were no statistically significant differences in buccal or papillary bone height between the different gingival biotypes. Thin gingival biotypes are more prevalent among females.
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.