ArticleBMC oral health2026
Gingival phenotype assessment: a comparative study of a novel CBCT-based measurement technique and transgingival probing.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and clinical utility of a novel, non-invasive cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based protocol for measuring gingival thickness in the maxillary anterior region, using transgingival probing (TGP) as the reference standard.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, 39 periodontally healthy patients (24 males, 15 females; mean age 36 ± 12 years) were recruited. Gingival thickness was measured at 2 mm, 4 mm, and 6 mm apical to the gingival zenith on the facial aspect of maxillary anterior teeth (234 teeth, 702 sites) using both TGP and a CBCT protocol involving radiopaque resin markers. Method agreement was analyzed via Bland-Altman plots and Deming regression. Diagnostic performance of CBCT for classifying gingival phenotype was assessed.
resultsCBCT measurements showed a strong correlation with TGP (ρ > 0.98, p < 0.001). Deming regression indicated a constant systemic error, with CBCT underestimating thickness by approximately 0.04 mm (95% CI: -0.053 to -0.035), but no proportional error. Despite this minor bias, agreement was excellent (Kappa > 0.95). CBCT demonstrated 100% specificity and > 96% sensitivity for identifying thick phenotypes. No significant differences in gingival thickness were found between genders.
conclusionThe novel CBCT-based measurement protocol shows high agreement with gold standard. The identified constant error is clinically negligible, supporting its utility as a reliable, non-invasive method for assessing gingival thickness and phenotype, with potential for integration with digital impression technology.
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.