Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cross-sectional study evaluates CBCT's accuracy in measuring gingival thickness, suggesting its clinical utility.
BACKGROUND: This 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. METHODS: In 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. RESULTS: CBCT 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. CONCLUSION: The 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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: