Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Objectives The cross-sectional study to evaluate the ability to categorize gingival phenotype according to gingival thickness (GT) using colored periodontal probes (CPP) and a traditional steel probe (SP). Material and Methods A total of 150 patients (n = 900) had three anterior teeth examined; the buccal GT in those teeth was assessed by transgingival sounds and categorized using two distinct methods. Specifically, it assessed diagnostic reasons for how well a standard periodontal probe (SPP) could differentiate between thin and thick gingiva, and a CPP could distinguish between medium, thick, and extremely thick gingiva. GT was assessed using transgingival evaluation at a distance of 2 mm from the gingival edge. Based on corresponding GT, thin and thick phenotypes were identified as being ≤1 mm and >1 mm, respectively. Using the transparency approach, the gingival phenotype was ascertained using SPP and a color-coded probe (CCP). Furthermore, keratinized tissue width (KTW) was assessed. Thin and thick gingival phenotypes were identified using experimental periodontal probes, and their diagnostic accuracy was compared. Results Nine hundred gingival sites were analyzed, transgingival technique classified 40% (n = 360) thin phenotypes (GT: 0.78 ± 0.12 mm, 3.52 ± 1.11 mm) and 60% (n = 540) thick phenotypes (GT: 1.22 ± 0.28 mm, 4.61 ± 1.1 mm). Similar diagnostic accuracy values of 0.69 and 0.70 were recorded for the SPP and CCP, respectively. Conclusion Identification of gingival phenotype maxillary anterior tooth achieved with comparable efficacy both color-coded plastic probe and SP.
Dayakar et al. (Wed,) studied this question.