Comparison of Gingival Phenotype Classification Methods and Phenotype-Related Clinical Parameters

Abstract Objectives The aim of the study is to classify and compare the gingival phenotype (GP) with different methods and to examine the relationships of phenotypic parameters measured from different reference points. Materials and Methods Gingival-Thickness (GT) in the upper anterior 6 teeth of 30 healthy individuals was evaluated by Transgingival-Probing (TP), Standard-Periodontal-Probing (SPP), Colored-Periodontal-Probing (CPP) and Cone-Beam-Computed-Tomography (CBCT) methods. The relationship between thin and thick GP and phenotypic parameters such as age, gender, Gingival-Recession (GR), Keratinized-Tissue-Width (KTW) and Buccal-Bone-Thickness (BBT) were compared. GT, BBT and related phenotypic parameters were measured from three mid-buccal points (margin-middle-apical) of each tooth and compared with TP and CBCT. Results There was no significance between GP and age, gender and GR (p > 0.05). More KTW was measured in areas with thick GP (p:0.008). The highest agreement in terms of detecting thin or thick GP was between TP and CBCT. All methods were more compatible in determining the thin phenotype (p < 0.01). Margin-GT was measured more than middle and apical, and mid-BBT was measured more than apical (p < 0.01). GT measured by TS and CBCT showed significant correlation (p < 0.01). KTW was significantly correlated with BBT and margin-GT (p < 0.01). Conclusions Thin or thick phenotype is associated with different apico-coranal points and KTW. TP and CBCT methods are useful for this purpose. Clinical Relevance: Among the four methods evaluated, CBCT showed the best compatibility with the gold standard, TP. Despite its high radiation dose, CBCT is useful before implant and orthodontic treatments to estimate prognosis and take precautions.