Korean J Orthod.  2017 May;47(3):176-185. 10.4041/kjod.2017.47.3.176.

An evaluation of the gingival biotype and the width of keratinized gingiva in the mandibular anterior region of individuals with different dental malocclusion groups and levels of crowding

• Kaya Y
• Alkan O
• Keskin S

• KMID: 2379651
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2017.47.3.176

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the relationship of gingival thickness (GT) and the width of keratinized gingiva (WKG) with different malocclusion groups and the level of crowding.
METHODS
A total of 187 periodontally healthy subjects (121 females and 66 males) who presented at the Faculty of Dentistry in Yüzüncü Yıl University for orthodontic treatment were enrolled in the study. The individuals involved in the study were divided into three groups; Angle Class I malocclusion, Angle Class II malocclusion, and Angle Class III malocclusion. Each group was classified as mild, moderate, or severe according to the level of crowding. WKG was determined as the distance between the mucogingival junction and the free gingival margin. GT was determined by the transgingival probing technique. Factorial variance analysis and the Duncan multiple comparison test were employed to identify the extent to which a difference was apparent between the groups according to these parameters.
RESULTS
It was determined that teeth in the mandibular anterior region display the thin gingival biotype. WKG and GT were observed as being higher at the mandibular incisor teeth in the severe crowding group and at the mandibular canine teeth in the mild crowding group. The GT of the mandibular right central and lateral incisors was found to be thinner in the Angle Class III group.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limits of this study, the results demonstrate that, there is no significant relationship of WKG and the mean GT in the mandibular anterior region according to the Angle classification.

Keyword

Crowding; Gingival thickness

MeSH Terms

Crowding*
Cuspid
Dentistry
Female
Gingiva*
Healthy Volunteers
Humans
Incisor
Malocclusion*
Malocclusion, Angle Class I
Malocclusion, Angle Class II
Malocclusion, Angle Class III
Tooth

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Gingival thickness measurement.

Reference

1. La Rocca AP, Alemany AS, Levi P Jr, Juan MV, Molina JN, Weisgold AS. Anterior maxillary and mandibular biotype: relationship between gingival thickness and width with respect to underlying bone thickness. Implant Dent. 2012; 21:507–515.

2. Zawawi KH, Al-Harthi SM, Al-Zahrani MS. Prevalence of gingival biotype and its relationship to dental malocclusion. Saudi Med J. 2012; 33:671–675.

3. Cook DR, Mealey BL, Verrett 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; 31:345–354.

4. Sin YW, Chang HY, Yun WH, Jeong SN, Pi SH, You HK. Association of gingival biotype with the results of scaling and root planing. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2013; 43:283–290.

5. 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; 3:25–31.

6. Renkema AM, Fudalej PS, Renkema AA, Abbas F, Bronkhorst E, Katsaros C. Gingival labial recessions in orthodontically treated and untreated individuals: a case - control study. J Clin Periodontol. 2013; 40:631–637.

7. Chatzopoulou D, Johal A. Management of gingival recession in the orthodontic patients. Semin Orthod. 2015; 21:15–26.

8. Slutzkey S, Levin L. Gingival recession in young adults: occurrence, severity, and relationship to past orthodontic treatment and oral piercing. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 134:652–656.

9. Renkema AM, Fudalej PS, Renkema A, Bronkhorst E, Katsaros C. Gingival recessions and the change of inclination of mandibular incisors during orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod. 2013; 35:249–255.

10. Kamak G, Kamak H, Keklik H, Gurel HG. The effect of changes in lower incisor inclination on gingival recession. ScientificWorldJournal. 2015; 2015:193206.

11. Yared KF, Zenobio EG, Pacheco W. Periodontal status of mandibular central incisors after orthodontic proclination in adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 130:6.e1–6.e8.

12. Proffit WR. Malocclusion and dentofacial deformity in contemporary society. In : Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM, editors. Contemporary orthodontics. 4th ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby Elsevier;2007. p. 2–24.

13. Sayin MO, Türkkahraman H. Malocclusion and crowding in an orthodontically referred Turkish population. Angle Orthod. 2004; 74:635–639.

14. Silness J, Löe H. Periodontal disease in pregnancy. II. Correlation between oral hygiene and periodontal condition. Acta Odontol Scand. 1964; 22:121–135.

15. Löe H, Silness J. Periodontal disease in pregnancy. I. Pregnancy and severity. Acta Odontol Scand. 1963; 21:533–551.

16. Melsen B, Allais D. Factors of importance for the development of dehiscences during labial movement of mandibular incisors: a retrospective study of adult orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 127:552–561. quiz 625.

17. Coatoam GW, Behrents RG, Bissada NF. The width of keratinized gingiva during orthodontic treatment: its significance and impact on periodontal status. J Periodontol. 1981; 52:307–313.

18. Wennström JL. Mucogingival considerations in orthodontic treatment. Semin Orthod. 1996; 2:46–54.

19. Stein JM, Lintel-Höping N, Hammächer C, Kasaj A, Tamm M, Hanisch O. The gingival biotype: measurement of soft and hard tissue dimensions - a radiographic morphometric study. J Clin Periodontol. 2013; 40:1132–1139.

20. 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; 81:569–574.

21. Greenberg J, Laster L, Listgarten MA. Transgingival probing as a potential estimator of alveolar bone level. J Periodontol. 1976; 47:514–517.

22. 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; 30:237–243.

23. Hirschfeld I. A study of skulls in the American museum of natural history in relation to periodontal disease. J Dent Res. 1923; 5:241–265.

24. Kolte R, Kolte A, Mahajan A. Assessment of gingival thickness with regards to age, gender and arch location. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2014; 18:478–481.

25. Wara-aswapati N, Pitiphat W, Chandrapho N, Rattanayatikul C, Karimbux N. Thickness of palatal masticatory mucosa associated with age. J Periodontol. 2001; 72:1407–1412.

26. Closs LQ, Branco P, Rizzatto SD, Raveli DB, Rösing CK. Gingival margin alterations and the preorthodontic treatment amount of keratinized gingiva. Braz Oral Res. 2007; 21:58–63.

27. Proffit WR. The development of orthodontic problems. In : Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM, editors. Contemporary orthodontics. 4th ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby Elsevier;2007. p. 72–106.

28. Zawawi KH, Al-Zahrani MS. Gingival biotype in relation to incisors' inclination and position. Saudi Med J. 2014; 35:1378–1383.

29. Matarese G, Isola G, Ramaglia L, Dalessandri D, Lucchese A, Alibrandi A, et al. Periodontal biotype: characteristic, prevalence and dimensions related to dental malocclusion. Minerva Stomatol. 2016; 65:231–238.