Comparative Evaluation of Measurement of Gingival Thickness Using Different Techniques

Main Article Content

Mohd Shabankhan H Pathan
Surabhi Joshi
Gaurav Girdhar
Sapan Patel
Yogeshkumar Savjibhai Patel


Introduction:  Gingival thickness is a crucial factor that is that is considered throughout the process of treatment. The techniques for measurements of gingival thickness are mainly divided into two categories qualitative and quantitative measurements. The periodontal probe method is the most commonly used in clinical practice. In recent years CBCT can not only be used to evaluate the hard tissue but also to assess the thickness of soft tissue with some modifications in technique.Objectives:The objective of this study was to compare and evaluate gingival thickness using five different measurement techniques. Methodology: A total of ten patients were included in this study. The procedure was explained to each patient and informed consent was obtained. Measurements of gingival thickness were made in the maxillary central incisors. The individuals in the study were all in good general health and had no crowding of teeth. The gingival thickness was measured using five distinct methods named as Transparency Method, Paralleling technique, Transgingival Probing, CBCT method and Digital superimposition method. Patients were categorized into five groups based on different techniques of measurement of gingival thickness.Results:One-way ANOVA (Analysis of variance) is a statistical method for comparing the means of two or more samples. In our study One Way, ANOVA test showed that there is no statistical difference between all the techniques. Conclusion: No significant difference between different techniques. However, CBCT has come out to be most effective in terms of being non-invasive method and accuracy. The most expensive method was Digital superimposition followed by CBCT and the most invasive method was transgingival probing.

Article Details

How to Cite
Mohd Shabankhan H Pathan, Surabhi Joshi, Gaurav Girdhar, Sapan Patel, & Yogeshkumar Savjibhai Patel. (2023). Comparative Evaluation of Measurement of Gingival Thickness Using Different Techniques. Journal of Coastal Life Medicine, 11(2), 1132–1139. Retrieved from


Kois JC. Altering Gingival Levels: The Restorative Connection. Part 1: Biologic Variables. J Esthet Dent. 1994; 6(1):3-7.

Kois JC. Predictable Single-Tooth Peri-Implant Esthetics: Five Diagnostic Keys.Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2004; 25:895-900.

Claffey N, Shanley D. Relationship of Gingival Thickness and Bleeding to Loss of Probing Attachment in Shallow Sites Following Nonsurgical Periodontal Therapy. J Clin Periodontol. 1986;13(7):654-657.

Eghbali A, De Rouck T, De Bruyn H, Cosyn J (2009) The Gingival Biotype Assessed by Experienced and Inexperienced Clinicians. J Clin Periodontol 36(11):958–963.

Rasperini G, Acunzo R, Cannalire P, Farronato G (2015) Influence of Periodontal Biotype on Root Surface Exposure during Orthodontic Treatment: A Preliminary Study. The International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry 35(5):665–675.

Alves PHM, Alves T, Pegoraro TA, Costa YM, Bonfante EA, de Almeida A (2018) Measurement Properties of Gingival Biotype Evaluation Methods. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 20(3):280–284.

Chan H-L, Sinjab K, Li J, Chen Z, Wang H-L, Kripfgans OD (2018) Ultrasonography for Noninvasive and Real-Time Evaluation of Peri-Implant Tissue Dimensions. J Clin Periodontol 45(8):986– 995.

Claffey N, Shanley D. Relationship of Gingival Thickness and Bleeding to Loss of Probing Attachment in Shallow Sites Following Nonsurgical Periodontal Therapy. J Clin Periodontol. 1986;13(7):654-657.

Güth J-F, Runkel C, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Edelhoff D, Keul C (2017) Accuracy of Five Intraoral Scanners Compared to Indirect Digitalization. Clin Oral Investig 21(5):1445–1455.

Cortellini P, Bissada NF (2018) Mucogingival Conditions in the Natural Dentition: Narrative Review, Case Definitions, and Diagnostic Considerations. J Clin Periodontol 45(Suppl 20):S190–S198.

Carlo B. Coronally Advanced Flap Procedure for Root Coverage. Is Flap Thickness a Relevant Predictor to Achieve Root Coverage 7 A-19 Case Series. JPeriodonto11999;70:1077-1084.

Anderigg CK, Hetzler DG, Nicole BK. Gingival Thickness in Guided Tissue Regeneration and Associated Recession at Facial f Ncation Defects. Journal of Periodontology 1995; 66: 397-402.

Savitha B, Vandana K L. Comparative Assessment of Gingival Thickness Using Transgingival Probing and Ultrasonographic Method. Indian J Dent Res 2005;16:135.

Stein, Jamal M.; Lintel-Höping, Nils; Hammächer, Christian; Kasaj, Adrian; Tamm, Miriam; Hanisch, Oliver (2013). The Gingival Biotype: Measurement of Soft and Hard Tissue Dimensions - a Radiographic Morphometric Study. Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 40(12), 1132–1139.

Fu JH, Yeh CY, Chan HL, Tatarakis N, Leong DJ, Wang HL. Tissue Biotype and Its Relation to the Underlying Bone Morphology. J Periodontol 2010;81:569-74.

Greenberg J, Laster L, Listgarten MA. Transgingival Probing as a Potential Estimator of Alveolar Bone Level. J Periodontol 1976;47:514-7.

El Khalifa M, Abu El Sadat SM, Gaweesh YS, Gaweesh YY. Assessment of Gingival Thickness Using CBCT Compared to Transgingival Probing and Its Correlation with Labial Bone Defects: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2022 May-Jun;37(3):464-472.