Article
Review Article
Kahon Chakraborty*,1, Sachin S Shivanaikar2, Darsha Jain3,

1Dr. Kahon Chakraborty, Department of Periodontology, Maratha Mandal Nathajirao G. Halgekar Institute of Dental Sciences & Research Centre.

2Department of Periodontology, Maratha Mandal Nathajirao G. Halgekar Institute of Dental Sciences & Research Centre

3Department of Periodontology, Maratha Mandal Nathajirao G. Halgekar Institute of Dental Sciences & Research Centre.

*Corresponding Author:

Dr. Kahon Chakraborty, Department of Periodontology, Maratha Mandal Nathajirao G. Halgekar Institute of Dental Sciences & Research Centre., Email: kahon.nino@gmail.com
Received Date: 2022-01-09,
Accepted Date: 2022-09-12,
Published Date: 2022-12-31
Year: 2022, Volume: 14, Issue: 4, Page no. 24-30, DOI: 10.26463/rjds.14_4_18
Views: 2151, Downloads: 123
Licensing Information:
CC BY NC 4.0 ICON
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0.
Abstract

Clinical appearance of normal gingival tissue reflects the underlying structure of epithelium, lamina propria and alveolar bone. The term ‘gingival phenotype’ refers to the quality of soft tissue profile surrounding the tooth, whereas the term ‘periodontal phenotype’ includes the underlying bone morphology as well. Gingival and periodontal phenotype has a significant impact on the outcome of restorative and regenerative therapy. The disparity in disease progression, treatment outcome and prognosis is possibly because of the difference in tissue response when subjected to various inflammatory, traumatic, or surgical insults. Evaluation of periodontal phenotype is an important parameter in establishing patient expectations in many complex esthetic procedures by allowing the clinician to predict therapeutic outcome. By understanding the nature of different biotypes and phenotypes, clinician can employ appropriate periodontal therapy and minimize unwanted treatment outcomes. The gingival and periodontal phenotypes have been studied by various authors in the past years using various non-invasive and invasive methods but few terminologies and their differences are not well defined in the periodontal literature. This review paper highlights the difference between gingival and periodontal biotype and phenotype, general aspects of various tissue morphotypes, methods to assess gingival and periodontal tissues, response of various tissues to different treatment modalities, techniques to improve tissue quality and its clinical significance.

<p>Clinical appearance of normal gingival tissue reflects the underlying structure of epithelium, lamina propria and alveolar bone. The term &lsquo;gingival phenotype&rsquo; refers to the quality of soft tissue profile surrounding the tooth, whereas the term &lsquo;periodontal phenotype&rsquo; includes the underlying bone morphology as well. Gingival and periodontal phenotype has a significant impact on the outcome of restorative and regenerative therapy. The disparity in disease progression, treatment outcome and prognosis is possibly because of the difference in tissue response when subjected to various inflammatory, traumatic, or surgical insults. Evaluation of periodontal phenotype is an important parameter in establishing patient expectations in many complex esthetic procedures by allowing the clinician to predict therapeutic outcome. By understanding the nature of different biotypes and phenotypes, clinician can employ appropriate periodontal therapy and minimize unwanted treatment outcomes. The gingival and periodontal phenotypes have been studied by various authors in the past years using various non-invasive and invasive methods but few terminologies and their differences are not well defined in the periodontal literature. This review paper highlights the difference between gingival and periodontal biotype and phenotype, general aspects of various tissue morphotypes, methods to assess gingival and periodontal tissues, response of various tissues to different treatment modalities, techniques to improve tissue quality and its clinical significance.</p>
Keywords
Gingival biotype, Gingival phenotype, Gingival thickness, Periodontal biotype, Periodontal phenotype
Downloads
  • 1
    FullTextPDF
Article
Introduction

Several factors like the gingival biotype, the architecture of the gingival tissue and tooth form plays a crucial role in the long–term success of esthetic restorations. The morphology of the gingiva plays a major role in the establishment of final esthetics. Therefore, recognition of different gingival tissues is important during treatment planning. Different gingival biotypes respond differently to inflammation, restoration, trauma and para–functional habits. These traumatic events eventually may lead to different types of periodontal and osseous defects which require different treatment methods.1

A critical factor to consider while planning a dental treatment, especially in the esthetic zones is the tissue biotype. The initial thickness of gingiva may predict the amount of root coverage that can be achieved by various procedures. The unique vascular supply of underlying alveolar bone and its tendency to resorb depends on the gingival thickness which can be altered by various treatment procedures.1,2 

Methods to measure gingival tissue thickness

Visual examination – It is a routinely used clinical procedure to evaluate the gingival thickness which is simple and non–invasive.3 Gingival biotype assessed visually is not sufficient to predict a proper diagnosis and plan a treatment for gingival esthetic surgeries and restorative procedures.4 The disadvantage of this method is that it is unreliable as the amount of gingival thickness cannot be assessed appropriately.5

Direct measurement – This is done by trans–gingival probing using a UNC–15 or William’s probe. Endodontic files and reamers with rubber stoppers are used more recently. A thickness of >1.5 mm is considered as ‘thick’ and <1.5 mm is considered as ‘thin’ gingival biotype. The precision of the UNC–15 or William’s probe, probing angulations and tissue distortion during probing are the few limitations of using this method.3,6 Identification of gingival biotype (thick versus thin) by visual method greatly differs from that being evaluated with a periodontal probe or by direct measurement.4

Probe transparency (TRANS) method – In this method, the gingival biotype is said to be thin or thick based on the visibility of the probe through the gingival margin. In a study, 85% intra examiner reproducibility was found while using this method.7

Modified caliper technique – Kan et al., in 2010 used a tension free caliper for the first time to measure the thickness of gingiva on the facial aspect of the maxillary anterior teeth region and found no significant difference compared to the results obtained using a probe. The limitations with this procedure are that it cannot be used during periodontal surgery and has limited application for pre–treatment evaluations.6

Ultrasonic devices – Ultrasonic devices were used by Kydd et al., in 1971 for the measurement of palatal mucosal thickness.8 It is a non–invasive method for determining tissue thickness. It is composed of an oscillating piezo–electric crystal which transmits a frequency pulse of 5 MHz through the mucosa (1000 signals per second). The speed of the wave transmitted through the mucosa is estimated to be about 520 meters per second. The mucosal thickness is calculated within (2 – 3) seconds by comparing the echo to the transmission of the pulse wave. The transducer probe present in the ultrasonic devices has a diameter of 4 mm and a precision of about 0.1 mm. The limitations of using this method are - difficulty in positioning of the device for achieving reproducible measurements, the unavailability of the devices and the high cost of the devices.3,9 A study was done in 2005 by Savitha and Vandana, where the authors compared the gingival thickness using TRANS method and ultrasonic devices. The authors concluded that the ultrasonic devices were more accurate in estimating the gingival thickness compared to the TRANS method, as TRANS method frequently over measured the gingival mucosal thickness.10

Cone–beam computed tomography (CBCT) – CBCT has been used recently for the visualization and measurement of both hard tissue and soft tissue thicknesses. CBCT can accurately measure both the bone and the mucosal thickness (especially on the labial side). CBCT is a more reliable method of evaluating the thickness of bone and mucosa compared to the direct measurement technique.11

Puffed cheek method – It was first used by Dvorak et al., in 2013 to evaluate the mucosal thickness by using CT with the help of a localized splint and a marker point. Four marker points are usually placed (two on central incisors and two on first molars). CT scans are taken with distended cheeks by asking the patients to puff out their cheeks. This method provides more accurate information of the oral mucosa compared to the conventional CT scans.12

Biotype versus Phenotype

Biotype: A group of tissues or organs having a similar and specific genetic constitution or genotype only.13

Phenotype: Appearance of a tissue or an organ which is based on a multifactorial constitution of genetic and environmental factors (it includes the biotype).13

Periodontal phenotype: This term is based on both gingival phenotype (three-dimensional gingival volume such as gingival thickness – GT and keratinized tissue width – KTW) and thickness of the facial and / or buccal bone plate (bone morphotype – BM).13

According to the definition, biotype is something which is predetermined by genetics, cannot be changed and does not include environmental factors and clinical intervention that can alter the profile of periodontal tissues. Whereas, periodontal phenotype can be altered by environmental factors and clinical interventions such as overhanging restorations, orthodontic treatments, or gingival grafting procedures.13,14

Periodontal phenotype cannot be assessed in full, while gingival phenotype (GT and KTW) can be assessed in a standardized and reproducible way. 

Dimensions used to determine periodontal biotype or phenotype16

Tooth dimensions (TD)

Bone morphotype (BM)

Gingival morphotype (GM)

Keratinized tissue width (KTW)

Gingival thickness (GT)

Tooth dimensions – Tooth dimensions were assessed in terms of crown width and crown length ratio (CW/ CL) of the central incisor and was classified as either a long narrow (CW / CL ± 0.5) or a short wide crown form (CW / CL ± 1.0) according to Olsson & Lindhe (1991). Cook et al., in 2011 conducted a study using the CL/CW ratio and a study by Gobbato et al., in 2012 modified the definition by adding the contact surfaces (CS) between the teeth, and considered CS/CL ratio. The latter defined the CS/CL ratio for triangular teeth (57%) and for square / tapered teeth (43% – 57%).

Bone morphotype – It was described by Becker et al., in 1997 who conducted a study on skull bones and defined bone morphotype as either flat, scalloped or pronounced scalloped. Other authors defined the bone morphotype by estimating the alveolar bone thickness.

Gingival phenotype or gingival morphotype – The term GM seems broad and extensive, even taking other parameters (KTW, GT) into its definition. Hence, gingival phenotype or gingival morphotype refers to the combination of the thickness of gingival tissues (GT) and the keratinized tissue width (KTW).

Keratinized tissue width – It is basically the width of attached gingiva along with the marginal gingiva. It represents the entire keratinized epithelium, that is the amount of gingiva above the muco–gingival junction.

Prevalence

The most predominant form of periodontal phenotype is the thick periodontal phenotype. Males have a thicker periodontal phenotype than females. Usually, younger individuals have a thick periodontal phenotype than middle–aged or older individuals. Few authors found that maxillary periodontal phenotype is thicker compared to mandible. Thinnest areas of periodontal phenotype are usually observed in the maxillary canine and mandibular first premolar regions. Racial and genetic factors also play a significant role in the individual’s periodontal phenotype.29 

Conclusion

The gingival tissue and underlying osseous structures vary from individual to individual and because of such variability, the gingival responses to various inflammatory, traumatic or surgical insults differ significantly, and each requires a different treatment. Periodontal phenotype is an important evaluation parameter which allows the clinician to predict therapeutic outcomes, especially in esthetic procedures. The nature of periodontal phenotype and its understanding helps the clinician to decide an appropriate periodontal treatment so that adverse or unwanted treatment outcomes are minimized. With the advancement in technologies and newer techniques for periodontal biotype assessment, clinicians can now accurately diagnose and predict treatment outcomes. Therefore, proper assessment of keratinized tissues, periodontal phenotype and vestibular depth plays an important role in deciding and planning a proper treatment which would eventually help to maintain the balance between the pink and white structures in the mouth. 

Conflict of Interest

None

Supporting Files
No Pictures
References
  1. Abraham S, Deepak KT, Ambili R, Preeja C, Archana V. Gingival biotype and its clinical significance–A review. Saudi J Dent Res 2014;5(1):3-7. 
  2. Bains VK, Gupta V, Srivastava R, Agarwal SK. Accretion of gingival height by gingival thickness augmentation: A clinical report. Asian J Oral Health Allied Sci 2013;3(1):25-31. 
  3. Reddy RT, Vandana KV, Prakash S. Gingival Biotype–A Review. Indian J Dent Adv 2017;9(2):86- 91. 
  4. Memon S, Patel JR, Sethuraman R, Patel R, Arora H. A comparative evaluation of the reliability of three methods of assessing gingival biotype in dentate subjects in different age groups: An in vivo study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2015;15(4):313. 
  5. Eghbali A, De Rouck T, De Bruyn H, Cosyn J. The gingival biotype assessed by experienced and inexperienced clinicians. J Clin Periodontol 2009;36(11):958-63. 
  6. Kan JY, Morimoto T, Rungcharassaeng K, Roe P, Smith DH. Gingival biotype assessment in the esthetic zone: visual versus direct measurement. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2010;30(3):237-43. 
  7. 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 Clin Periodontol 2009;36(5):428-33. 
  8. Kydd WL. The thickness measurement of masticatory mucosa in vivo. Int Dent J 1971;21:430-41.
  9. Müller HP, Barrieshi-Nusair KM, Könönen E. Repeatability of ultrasonic determination of gingival thickness. Clin Oral Investig 2007;11(4):439-42. 
  10. Savitha B, Vandana KL. Comparative assessment of gingival thickness using transgingival probing and ultrasonographic method. Indian J Dent Res 2005;16(4):135. 
  11. Barriviera M, Duarte WR, Januário AL, Faber J, Bezerra AC. A new method to assess and measure palatal masticatory mucosa by cone‐beam computerized tomography. J Clin Periodontol 2009;36(7):564-8. 
  12. Dvorak G, Arnhart C, Schön P, Heuberer S, Watzek G, Gahleitner A. The “puffed cheek method” to evaluate mucosal thickness: case series. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24(7):719-24. 
  13. Jepsen S, Caton JG, Albandar JM, Bissada NF, Bouchard P, Cortellini P, et al. Periodontal manifestations of systemic diseases and developmental and acquired conditions: Consensus report of workgroup 3 of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri‐ Implant Diseases and Conditions. J Clin Periodontol 2018;45:S219-29. 
  14. Kim DM, Bassir SH, Nguyen TT. Effect of gingival phenotype on the maintenance of periodontal health: An American Academy of Periodontology best evidence review. J Periodontol 2020;91(3):311-38.
  15. Vandana KL, Goswami P. Gingival thickness: Critical clinical dimension of periodontium. CODS J Dent 2016;8(2):108-120. 
  16. Zweers J, Thomas RZ, Slot DE, Weisgold AS, Van der Weijden FG. Characteristics of periodontal biotype, its dimensions, associations and prevalence: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 2014 Oct;41(10):958-71. 
  17. Ochsenbien C, Ross S. A re-evaluation of osseous surgery. Dent Clin North Am 1969;13(1):87–102. 
  18. Weisgold AS. Contours of the full crown restoration. Alpha Omegan 1977;10:77–89. 
  19. Claffey N, Shanley D. Relationship of gingival thickness and bleeding to loss of probing attachment in shallow sites following non surgical periodontal therapy. J Clin Periodontol 1986;13:654–7. 
  20. Seibert J, Lindhe J. Esthetics and periodontal therapy. In: Textbook of Clinical Periodontology. Copenhagen, Denmark: Munksgaard; 1989. p. 477- 514.
  21. Olsson M, Lindhe J. Periodontal characteristics in individuals with varying form of the upper central incisors. J Clin Periodontol 1991;18(1):78-82. 
  22. Kois JC. The restorative‐periodontal interface: biological parameters. Periodontol 2000 1996;11(1):29-38.
  23. Becker W, Ochsenbein C, Tibbetts L, Becker BE. Alveolar bone anatomic profiles as measured from dry skulls: Clinical ramifications. J Clin Periodontol 1997;24(10):727-31. 
  24. Müller HP, Eger T. Gingival phenotypes in young male adults. J Clin Periodontol 1997;24(1):65-71. 
  25. Vandana KL, Savitha B. Thickness of gingiva in association with age, gender and dental arch location. J Clin Periodontol 2005;32(7):828-30. 
  26. Müller HP, Könönen E. Variance components of gingival thickness. J Periodontal Res 2005;40(3):239- 44. 
  27. Aimetti M, Massei G, Morra M, Cardesi E, Romano F. Correlation between gingival phenotype and Schneiderian membrane thickness. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23(6):1128-32. 
  28. 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 Clin Periodontol 2009;36(5):428-33. 
  29. Manjunath RS, Rana A, Sarkar A. Gingival biotype assessment in a healthy periodontium: transgingival probing method. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9(5):ZC66. 
  30. Kao RT, Fagan MC, Conte GJ. Thick vs. thin gingival biotypes: a key determinant in treatment planning for dental implants. J Calif Dent Assoc 2008;36(3): 193-8
We use and utilize cookies and other similar technologies necessary to understand, optimize, and improve visitor's experience in our site. By continuing to use our site you agree to our Cookies, Privacy and Terms of Use Policies.