PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · European Journal of General Dentistry 2020; 9(03): 170-173
DOI: 10.4103/ejgd.ejgd_66_20
Original Article

Correlation of Gingival Phenotype and Schneiderian Membrane Thickness: A Cross-Sectional Study

Zahra Dalili Kajan
Departments Maxillofacial Radiology and Periodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences
,
Dina Maleki
1   Student Research Committee, Faculty of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran
,
Bahareh Afjeh Soleimani
1   Student Research Committee, Faculty of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran
,
Meysam Malekzadeh
2   Periodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background and Purpose: Gingival phenotype (GP) can be measured in patient's clinical evaluations to predict the Schneiderian membrane thickness (SMT). Materials and Methods: In this analytic observational cross-sectional study, cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images of 310 patients requiring implant surgery in the first or second molar area of maxilla were selected. The GP was determined by inserting a periodontal probe into gingival sulcus. If the outline of the underlying periodontal probe could be seen through the gingival, it was categorized as thin; if not, it was recorded as thick. The examiner measured SMT by calculating the average thickness of the Schneiderian membrane in three sequent cuts of CBCT images. All analyses were performed using SPSS Version 24 software. To analyze the data, independent samples test, Pearson correlation, and linear regression were performed. The level of significance was set at P = 0.05. Results: Age had no statistically significant relation with SMT and GP (P = 0.666 and P = 0.842, respectively). The difference of SMT among males and females was not statistically significant (P = 0.196). In terms of GP, males and females were statistically significantly different such that females had thin GP more frequently compared to males (P = 0.003). SMT was statistically significantly thinner in patients with thin GP compared to those with thick GP (P ≤ 0.001). Conclusion: It may be suggested that GP is an important clinical predictor for SMT, particularly if CBCT evaluations or histological examinations are not possible.

Keywords

Cone-beam computed tomography - gingival phenotype - implant surgery - Schneiderin membrane perforation - Schneiderin membrane thickness

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.




Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
01. November 2021

© 2020. European Journal of General Dentistry. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Ganeles J, Zöllner A, Jackowski J, ten Bruggenkate C, Beagle J, Guerra F. Immediate and early loading of Straumann implants with a chemically modified surface (SLActive) in the posterior mandible and maxilla: 1-year results from a prospective multicenter study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:1119-28.
  • 2 Kalyvas D, Kapsalas A, Paikou S, Tsiklakis K. Thickness of the Schneiderian membrane and its correlation with anatomical structures and demographic parameters using CBCT tomography: A retrospective study. Int J Implant Dent 2018;4:32.
  • 3 Janner SF, Caversaccio MD, Dubach P, Sendi P, Buser D, Bornstein MM. Characteristics and dimensions of the Schneiderian membrane: A radiographic analysis using cone beam computed tomography in patients referred for dental implant surgery in the posterior maxilla. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:1446-53.
  • 4 Tükel HC, Tatli U. Risk factors and clinical outcomes of sinus membrane perforation during lateral window sinus lifting: Analysis of 120 patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2018;47:1189-94.
  • 5 Lathiya VN, Kolte AP, Kolte RA, Mody DR. Analysis of association between periodontal disease and thickness of maxillary sinus mucosa using cone beam computed tomography-A retrospective study. Saudi Dent J 2019;31:228-35.
  • 6 Pommer B, Dvorak G, Jesch P, Palmer RM, Watzek G, Gahleitner A. Effect of maxillary sinus floor augmentation on sinus membrane thickness in computed tomography. J Periodontol 2012;83:551-6.
  • 7 Hermes M, Lommen J, Kübler NR, Lytvyniuk I, Singh DD, Schorn L, et al. Influence of Schneiderian membrane perforations on the prognosis and outcomes of lateral window sinus lift operations: A retrospective case series study. Dent Oral Disord 2018;6:1-9.
  • 8 Khorramdel A, Shirmohammadi A, Sadighi A, Faramarzi M, Babaloo AR, Sadighi Shamami M, et al. Association between demographic and radiographic characteristics of the Schneiderian membrane and periapical and periodontal diseases using cone-beam computed tomography scanning: A retrospective study. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2017;11:170-6.
  • 9 Yilmaz HG, Tözüm TF. Are gingival phenotype, residual ridge height, and membrane thickness critical for the perforation of maxillary sinus? J Periodontol 2012;83:420-5.
  • 10 Esfahrood ZR, Kadkhodazadeh M, Talebi Ardakani MR. Gingival biotype: A review. Gen Dent 2013;61:14-7.
  • 11 Aimetti M, Massei G, Morra M, Cardesi E, Romano F. Correlation between gingival phenotype and Schneiderian membrane thickness. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:1128-32.
  • 12 Bansal M, Singh TB. The efficacy of transgingival probing in class II buccal furcation defects treated by guided tissue regeneration. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2016;20:391-5.
  • 13 Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Umezu K, Kois JC. Dimensions of peri-implant mucosa: An evaluation of maxillary anterior single implants in humans. J Periodontol 2003;74:557-62.
  • 14 Wen SC, Lin YH, Yang YC, Wang HL. The influence of sinus membrane thickness upon membrane perforation during transcrestal sinus lift procedure. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:1158-64.
  • 15 Shanbhag S, Karnik P, Shirke P, Shanbhag V. Cone-beam computed tomographic analysis of sinus membrane thickness, ostium patency, and residual ridge heights in the posterior maxilla: Implications for sinus floor elevation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:755-60.
  • 16 Insua A, Monje A, Chan HL, Wang HL. Association of inflammatory status and maxillary sinus Schneiderian membrane thickness. Clin Oral Investig 2018;22:245-54.
  • 17 Rege IC, Sousa TO, Leles CR, Mendonça EF. Occurrence of maxillary sinus abnormalities detected by cone beam CT in asymptomatic patients. BMC Oral Health 2012;12:30.
  • 18 Goller-Bulut D, Sekerci AE, Köse E, Sisman Y. Cone beam computed tomographic analysis of maxillary premolars and molars to detect the relationship between periapical and marginal bone loss and mucosal thickness of maxillary sinus. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2015;20:e572-9.
  • 19 Çam B, Çam OY, Muluk NB. Odontogenic causes of sinus infections. In: All Around the Nose. Cham: Springer; 2020. p. 489-97.
  • 20 Vallo J, Suominen-Taipale L, Huumonen S, Soikkonen K, Norblad A. Prevalence of mucosal abnormalities of the maxillary sinus and their relationship to dental disease in panoramic radiography: Results from the Health 2000 Health Examination Survey. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010;109:e80-7.
  • 21 Manjunath RG, Rana A, Sarkar A. Gingival biotype assessment in a healthy periodontium: Transgingival probing method. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9:ZC66-9.
  • 22 Chaturvedi S, Haralur SB, Addas MK, Alfarsi MA. CBCT analysis of Schneiderian membrane thickness and its relationship with gingival biotype and arch form. Niger J Clin Pract 2019;22:1448-56.