ASSESMENT OF GINGIVAL THICKNESS AND THE WIDTH OF KERATINIZED GINGIVA IN THE MANDIBULAR ANTERIOR REGION OF INDIVIDUALS WITH DIFFERENT DENTAL MALOCCLUSION GROUPS AND LEVELS OF CROWDING.

Main Article Content

Dr. Kumar Gaurav
Dr. Abhishek Sharma
Dr. Ankita Singh
Mohit Bansal
Dr. Ridam Chhabra
Dr. Ravi Gupta

Keywords

Crowding, Gingival Width, Thickness.

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the width and thickness of keratinized gingiva in mandibular anterior region of individuals with different dental malocclusion groups and levels of crowding.


Methods: The study group included 180 periodontally healthy subjects (102 females and 78males, age groups 16 to 24 years) who presented at the Himachal Institute of Dental Science, Paonta Sahib for orthodontic treatment. The participants involved in the study was divided according to Angle’s classification into Class I, Class II, Class III malocclusion. Each group was further subdivided according to level of crowding into mild, moderate, severe. Width of keratinized gingiva was evaluated as the distance between the mucogingival junction and the free gingival margin. The thickness was determined by transgingival probing technique in mandibular anterior segment. Analysis of variation test and Tukey’s post- hoc test was done for comparison of various groups in relation to width and thickness of keratinized gingiva.


Results: Width of the keratinized gingiva and gingival thickness were observed as being higher in the severe crowding group and at the mandibular canine teeth in the mild crowding group in mandibular anterior region.


Conclusions: In the present study we conclude that there is no significant relation between gingival thickness and width of keratinized gingiva according to the Angle’s classification in mandibular anterior region.

Abstract 91 | PDF Downloads 33

References

1. La Rocca AP, Alemany AS, Levi P Jr, Juan MV, Molina JN, Weis gold AS. Anterior maxillary and mandibular biotype: relationship between gingival thickness and width respect to underlying bone thickness. Implant dent 2012; 21:507 -15.
2. Zawawi KH , Al – Harthi SM , Al – Zahrani MS. Prevalence of gingival biotype and its relationship to dental malocclusion. Saudi Med J 2012;33: 6715.
3. Cook DR, Mealey BL, Verret RG, Mills MP, Noujeim ME, Lasho DJ, et al. Relationship between clinical periodontal biotype and labial plate thickness: an in vivo study .Int J periodontics Restorative Dent 2011; 31:345- 54.
4. J. L. Busschop, M. Van Vllerberghe , J . De Boever, and L .Dermaut. The width of the attached gingiva during orthodontic treatment: A clinical study in human patients. Am. J. orthod.March 1985; 87:224- 29.
5. Bains VK , Gupta V , Srivastava R, Agarwal SK. Accretion of gingival height by gingival thickness agumentation: A clinical report . Asian J oral Health Allied Sci 2013; 43:283- 90.
6. LucianeQuadradoCloss , Paula Branco, Susana Deon Rizzatto, DirceuBarnabeRaveli , CassianoKuchenbeckerRosing . Gingival margin alterations and the pre – orthodontic treatment amount of keratinized gingiva.Braz Oral Res 2007;21 (1): 58-63.
7. Renkema A M ,Fudalej PS Renkema AA , Abbas F, Bronkhorst E, KatsarosC. Gingival labial recession in orthodontically treated and untreated individuals : a case control study. J Clin Periodontal 2013; 40: 631 -7.
8. Joseph Y. K. Kan, Taichiro Morimoto, Kitichai Rung charassaeng , Phillip Roe. Gingival biotype assessment in the esthetic zone: Visual Versus Direct Measurement. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2010; 30:237-43.
9. Sultzkey S, Levin L. Gingival recession in young adults: occurrence, severity and relationship to past orthodontic treatment and oral piercing. Am J OrthodDentofacial Orthop 2008; 134: 652 -6.
10. Singh Shivani , K L . Vandana.Assessment of gingival thickness in primary, mixed and permanent dentition.Int J of Dental Research; 127-29.
11. Matarese G, Isola G, Ramaglia L, Dalessandri D, Lucchese A , Alibrandi A, et al . periodontalbiptype : characteristic , prevalence and dimension related to dental malocclusion . Minerva Stomatol 2016: 65: 231-8.
12. Shaju Jacob P, Zade RM. Width of attached gingiva in an indian population: A descriptive study. Bang J of Medical Science 2009.
13. Rucha Shah, N . K. Sowmya and D. S. Mehta. Prevalence of gingival biotype and its relationship to clinical parameters.ContempClin Dent.2015; s167 –s171.
14. Ochsenbein C, Ross S. a reevaluation of osseous surgery. Dent Clin North Am. 1969; 13:87-102.
15. Seibert JL, LindheJ. esthetics and periodontal theraphy. In: Lindhe J, editor. Textbook of clinical periodontology. 2nded .Copenhangen, Denmark: munksgaard; 1989. pp 477-514.
16. Yared KF, Zenobio EG, Pacheco W. Periodontal status of mandibular central incisors after orthodontic proclinations in .Am J orthodDentofacialorthop2006; 130: 6.e1-8.
17. Batenhorst KF, Bowers GM, Williams JE Jr: Tissue changes resulting from facial tipping and extrusion of incisors in monkeys. J Periodontal 45: 660-668,1974.
18. Dorfmans HS: Mucogingival changes resulting from mandibular incisor tooth movement .Am J ORTHOD 74: 286-297, 1978.
19. TrosselloVK, Gianelly AA: Orthodontic treatment and periodontal status . J periodontal 50:665-671,1979.
20. Steiner GG, Pearson JK, Ainamo J: changes of the marginal peridontium as a result of labial tooth movementa in monkeys. J periodontal 52:314-320,1981.
21. YesimKaya ,OzerAlkan ,SiddikKeskin: an evaluation of gingival biotype and width of keratinized gingiva in the mandibular anterior region of individuals with different dental malocclusion groups and levels of crowding; kjod.2017.47.3.176.
22. Gary W. Coatoam, Rolf G. Behrents.t and Nabil F. Bissadaij: The Width of Keratinized Gingiva During Orthodontic Treatment: Its Significance and Impact on Periodontal Status. J. Periodontol. June, 1981. 23) RajashriKolte, AbhayKolte, AaditiMahajan: Assessment of gingival thickness with regards to age, gender and arch location. Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology - Vol 18, Issue 4, Jul-Aug 2014.
23. Vandana KL, Savitha B. Thickness of gingiva in association with age, gender and dental arch location. J ClinPeriodontol 2005; 32:828-30.
24. Eger T, Müller HP, Heinecke A. Ultrasonic determination of gingival thickness. Subject variation and influence of tooth type and clinical features.J ClinPeriodontol 1996; 23:839-45.
25. De Rouck T, Eghbali R, Collys K, De Bruyn H, Cosyn J. The gingival biotype revisited: Transparency of the periodontal probe through the gingival margin as a method to discriminate thin from thick gingiva. J ClinPeriodontol2009; 36:428–433.
26. Baldi C, Pini-Prato G, Nieri M, et al. Coronally advanced flap procedure for root [16] coverage Is flap thickness a relevant predictor to achieve root coverage? A 19- case series.J Periodontol. 1999;70:1077–84.
27. Hwang D, Wang HL. Flap thickness as a predictor of root coverage: A systematic [29] review. J Periodontol.2006; 77:1625–34.
28. Coatoam GW, Behrents RG, Bissada NF. The width of keratinized gingiva during orthodontic treatment: its significance and impact on periodontal status. J Periodontol 1981;52: 307-13
29. Wennström JL. Mucogingival considerations in orthodontic treatment.Semin Orthod 1996;2: 46-54.

Most read articles by the same author(s)