International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 9 , ISSUE 2 ( April-June, 2016 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Prevalence of Gingival Biotypes among Young Dentate North Indian Population: A Biometric Approach

Manu Rathee, Polsani L Rao, Mohaneesh Bhoria

Keywords : Gingival biotype, Gingival sulcus, Gingival thickness, Periodontal probe

Citation Information : Rathee M, Rao PL, Bhoria M. Prevalence of Gingival Biotypes among Young Dentate North Indian Population: A Biometric Approach. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016; 9 (2):104-108.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1343

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-06-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the prevalence of various gingival biotypes and to corroborate gingival thickness and gingival biotypes across tooth type, site, and gender. Materials and methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted across systemically healthy subjects. A systematic clinical evaluation for gingival biotypes and gingival thicknesses was recorded by modified Iwanson's gauge, to the nearest 0.1 mm, probing the gingival sulcus at the midfacial aspect of maxillary and mandibular central incisors and first molars. All measurements were made across a total of 920 sites in 115 subjects (69 female and 46 male) based on gingival transparency and were statistically analyzed. Results: A significant agreement on the reproducibility of the measurements was noted. The median overall gingival thickness was recorded at 0.75 mm with interquantile difference of 0.39 mm. The thin biotype variant showed across the ranges of 0.3 to 0.6 mm of gingival thicknesses and thick biotype variant across the ranges of 1.0 to 1.2 mm, with more prevalence in anterior and posterior site respectively. Moreover, for gingival thickness of 0.7 mm, the probe visibility showed tendency toward both thin/thick biotype variant in both anterior and posterior segments. The disposition of male participants toward thick biotype and female participants toward the thin biotype variant has been noted. Conclusion: Within the limitations of the current study, our data support the traditional hypothesis of two main gingival biotypes as distinguishable by gingival transparency. In addition, we provide evidence of existence of intermediate biotypes with respect to gingival thickness. These findings can be utilized as objective guidelines for determination of biotype and can be implicated in many dental operative procedures. How to cite this article: Rathee M, Rao PL, Bhoria M. Prevalence of Gingival Biotypes among Young Dentate North Indian Population: A Biometric Approach. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016;9(2):104-108.


PDF Share
  1. Seba A, Deepak KT, Ambili R, Preeja C, Archana V. Gingival biotype and its clinical significance—a review. Saudi J Dent Res 2014 Jan;5(1):3-7.
  2. Fu J, Lee A, Wang H. Influence of tissue biotype on implant esthetics. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011 May- Jun;26(3):499-508.
  3. Rouck DT, Eghbali R, Collys K, De Bruyn H, Cosyn J. The gingival biotype revisited: transparency of the periodontal probe through gingival margin as a method to discriminate thin from thick gingival. J Clin Periodontol 2009 May;36(5):428-433.
  4. Kan JY, Morimoto T, Rungcharassaeng K, Roe P, Smith DH. Gingival biotype assessment in esthetic zone: visual versus direct measurement. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2010 Jun;30(3):237-243.
  5. Cook DR, Mealey BL, Verrett RG, Mills MP, Noujeim ME, Lasho DJ, Cronin RJ Jr. Relationship between clinical periodontal biotype and labial plate thickness: an in vivo study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2011 Jul-Aug;31(4):345-354.
  6. Malhotra R, Grover V, Bhardwaj A, Mohindra K. Analysis of the gingival biotype based on the measurement of the dentopapillary complex. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2014 Jan;18(1):43-47.
  7. Eghbali A, DeRouck T, Bruyn H, Cosyn J. The gingival biotype assessed by experienced and inexperienced clinicians. J Clin Periodontol 2009 Nov;36(11):958-963.
  8. Polack MA, Douglas H. Biotype change for the esthetic rehabilitation of the smile. J Esthet Restor Dent 2013 Jun; 25(3):177-186.
  9. Ahmad I. Anterior dental esthetics: the gingival perspective. Br Dent J 2005 Aug 27;199(4):195-202.
  10. Olsson M, Lindhe J. Periodontal characteristics in individuals with varying form of upper central incisors. J Clin Periodontol 1991 Jan;18(1):78-82.
  11. Muller HP, Schaller N, Eger T, Heinecke A. Thickness of masticatory mucosa. J Clin Periodontol 2000 Jun;27(6):431-436.
  12. Bhat V, Shetty S. Prevalence of different gingival biotypes in individuals with varying forms of maxillary central incisors: a survey. J Dent Implant 2013;3(2):116-121.
  13. Vandana KL, Savitha B. Thickness of gingival in association with age, gender, and dental arch location. J Clin Periodontol 2005 Jul;32(7):828-830.
  14. Kao RT, Fagan M, Conte GJ. Thick vs thin gingival biotypes: a key determinant in treatment planning for dental implants. J Calif Dent Assoc 2008 Mar;36(3):193-198.
  15. Barrett AW, Scully C. Human oral mucosal melanocytes: a review. J Oral Pathol Med 1994 Mar;23(3):97-103.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.