Comparison of Ultrasonography, CBCT , Transgingival Probing, Colour‐Coded and Periodontal Probe Transparency With Histological Gingival Thickness: A Diagnostic Accuracy Study Revisiting Thick Versus Thin Gingiva

doi:10.1111/jcpe.14139

AutoresHamoun Sabri, Paolo Nava, Parham Hazrati, Abdusalam Alrmali, Pablo Galindo‐Fernández, Muhammad H. A. Saleh, Javier Calatrava, Shayan Barootchi, Lorenzo Tavelli, Hom‐Lay Wang

Por qué importa

Este estudio evalúa la fiabilidad de diferentes métodos no invasivos para medir el grosor gingival (GT), comparándolos con la histología como estándar de referencia. Se analizaron la ecografía, la tomografía computarizada de haz cónico (CBCT), la transparencia de sondas y el sondaje transgingival (TGP). La importancia clínica radica en la necesidad de conocer el GT para procedimientos periodontales e implantológicos, siendo crucial para la planificación y el pronóstico. Los resultados sugieren que la ecografía y el TGP son herramientas con precisión clínicamente aceptable, ofreciendo alternativas al sondaje convencional. Además, se propone un nuevo umbral diagnóstico para diferenciar encía fina de gruesa, potencialmente mejorando la toma de decisiones clínicas en la práctica diaria.

Abstract original

AIM: To assess the reliability of ultrasonographic, cone beam computed tomographic (CBCT), probe transparency and transgingival probing (TGP) methods in evaluating gingival thickness (GT), compared with the gold standard histological assessment. METHODS: Sixteen fresh cadaver heads with intact gingivae were used. The sequence for GT measurement included CBCT, ultrasonography, probe transparency, TGP and histology. Both stainless steel periodontal probe and colour-coded probes were used for transparency. TGP involved a calibrated endodontic spreader, and histologic samples served as a comparative standard. Primary outcomes evaluated accuracy in GT measurement, while secondary outcomes assessed agreement among methods and established an optimal threshold for thin versus thick gingiva. RESULTS: One hundred and fifteen teeth were examined, yielding a mean GT of 1.34 mm histologically. US and CBCT underestimated GT (means of 1.25 mm and 1.13 mm, respectively), while TGP overestimated (1.51 mm). Correlations (r = 0.88-0.98) and ICC values (0.73-0.95) indicated strong inter-method agreement. Regression models significantly estimated histological GT from US, CBCT and TGP. A new 1.18 mm cut-off, based on histology, improved diagnostic accuracy over the traditional 1 mm threshold. CONCLUSIONS: While histology remains the GT reference standard, US, CBCT and TGP achieved clinically acceptable accuracy. US showed the highest agreement with histology, followed by TGP and CBCT. The study supports US as the most practical non-invasive tool, although CBCT and TGP remain viable options. Further clinical validation is recommended, acknowledging the limitations of cadaveric models in reflecting in vivo conditions.

Leer texto completo ↗DOI · 10.1111/jcpe.14139

Autor Doctor&Cols

Javier Calatrava Serrano de Haro
Cirugía Oral e Implantología

Cómo citar

Sabri H, Nava P, Hazrati P, Alrmali A, Galindo‐Fernández P, Saleh MHA, et al. Comparison of Ultrasonography, CBCT , Transgingival Probing, Colour‐Coded and Periodontal Probe Transparency With Histological Gingival Thickness: A Diagnostic Accuracy Study Revisiting Thick Versus Thin Gingiva. Journal Of Clinical Periodontology. 2025. doi:10.1111/jcpe.14139