Clinical efficacy of intraoral ultrasonography versus transgingival probing for measurement of gingival thickness in different gingival biotypes: a clinical trial

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS

ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-04-02 DOI:10.1186/s13005-024-00422-4

Maryam Alizad-Rahvar, Yaser Safi, Mahdi Kadkhodazadeh, Mohammad Parham Ghomashi

{"title":"Clinical efficacy of intraoral ultrasonography versus transgingival probing for measurement of gingival thickness in different gingival biotypes: a clinical trial","authors":"Maryam Alizad-Rahvar, Yaser Safi, Mahdi Kadkhodazadeh, Mohammad Parham Ghomashi","doi":"10.1186/s13005-024-00422-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Transgingival probing is conventionally used for gingival thickness (GT) measurement. However, invasiveness is a major drawback of transgingival probing. Thus, researchers have been in search of alternative methods for measurement of GT. This study compared the clinical efficacy of intraoral ultrasonography and transgingival probing for measurement of GT in different biotypes. This clinical trial was conducted on 34 patients requiring crown lengthening surgery. GT was measured at 40 points with 2- and 4-mm distances from the free gingival margin (FGM) of anterior and premolar teeth of both jaws in each patient by an intraoral ultrasound probe. For measurement of GT by the transgingival probing method, infiltration anesthesia was induced, and a #25 finger spreader (25 mm) was vertically inserted into the soft tissue until contacting bone. The inserted length was measured by a digital caliper with 0.01 mm accuracy. All measurements were made by an operator with high reliability under the supervision of a radiologist. Data were analyzed by t-test, Power and Effect Size formula, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The two methods were significantly different in measurement of GT in both thick and thin biotypes at 2- and 4-mm distances (P < 0.001). The two methods had a significant difference in both the mandible (P < 0.001) and maxilla (P < 0.001) and in both the anterior (P < 0.003) and premolar (P < 0.003) regions. Although the difference was statistically significant in t-tests, the power and effect formula proved it to be clinically insignificant. Also, the ICC of the two methods revealed excellent agreement. The results showed optimal agreement of ultrasound and transgingival probing for measurement of GT. The study was approved by the ethics committee of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences on 2021-12-28 (IR.SBMU.DRC.REC.1400.138) and registered in the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials on 2022-03-14 (IRCT20211229053566N1).","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":"68 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-024-00422-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Transgingival probing is conventionally used for gingival thickness (GT) measurement. However, invasiveness is a major drawback of transgingival probing. Thus, researchers have been in search of alternative methods for measurement of GT. This study compared the clinical efficacy of intraoral ultrasonography and transgingival probing for measurement of GT in different biotypes. This clinical trial was conducted on 34 patients requiring crown lengthening surgery. GT was measured at 40 points with 2- and 4-mm distances from the free gingival margin (FGM) of anterior and premolar teeth of both jaws in each patient by an intraoral ultrasound probe. For measurement of GT by the transgingival probing method, infiltration anesthesia was induced, and a #25 finger spreader (25 mm) was vertically inserted into the soft tissue until contacting bone. The inserted length was measured by a digital caliper with 0.01 mm accuracy. All measurements were made by an operator with high reliability under the supervision of a radiologist. Data were analyzed by t-test, Power and Effect Size formula, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The two methods were significantly different in measurement of GT in both thick and thin biotypes at 2- and 4-mm distances (P < 0.001). The two methods had a significant difference in both the mandible (P < 0.001) and maxilla (P < 0.001) and in both the anterior (P < 0.003) and premolar (P < 0.003) regions. Although the difference was statistically significant in t-tests, the power and effect formula proved it to be clinically insignificant. Also, the ICC of the two methods revealed excellent agreement. The results showed optimal agreement of ultrasound and transgingival probing for measurement of GT. The study was approved by the ethics committee of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences on 2021-12-28 (IR.SBMU.DRC.REC.1400.138) and registered in the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials on 2022-03-14 (IRCT20211229053566N1).

查看原文本刊更多论文

口内超声波与经龈探针测量不同牙龈生物类型的牙龈厚度的临床疗效：一项临床试验

经龈探针是测量牙龈厚度（GT）的传统方法。然而，侵入性是经龈探针的一个主要缺点。因此，研究人员一直在寻找测量牙龈厚度的替代方法。这项研究比较了口内超声波检查和经龈探针测量不同生物类型牙龈厚度的临床疗效。这项临床试验针对 34 名需要进行牙冠延长手术的患者。使用口内超声探针测量了每位患者两颌前磨牙和前臼齿游离龈缘（FGM）上距离 2 毫米和 4 毫米的 40 个点的 GT 值。采用经龈探针法测量 GT 时，先进行浸润麻醉，然后将 25 号手指扩张器（25 毫米）垂直插入软组织，直至接触牙槽骨。插入长度由数字卡尺测量，精确度为 0.01 毫米。所有测量均在放射科医生的监督下由一名可靠性极高的操作员完成。数据分析采用 t 检验、功率和效应大小公式以及类内相关系数 (ICC)。在 2 毫米和 4 毫米的距离上，两种方法在测量厚生物型和薄生物型的 GT 方面有明显差异（P < 0.001）。两种方法在下颌骨（P < 0.001）和上颌骨（P < 0.001）以及前磨牙（P < 0.003）和前臼齿（P < 0.003）区域均有显著差异。虽然这种差异在 t 检验中具有统计学意义，但功率和效应公式证明这种差异在临床上并不显著。此外，两种方法的 ICC 显示出极好的一致性。结果表明，超声和经龈探针测量 GT 的一致性最佳。该研究于 2021-12-28 获得沙希德-贝赫什提医科大学伦理委员会批准（IR.SBMU.DRC.REC.1400.138），并于 2022-03-14 在伊朗临床试验注册中心注册（IRCT20211229053566N1）。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)

CiteScore

9.40

自引率

2.10%

发文量

464