Next Article in Journal
Severe Hemodynamic Instability in a Young Pregnant Woman with Massive Pericardial Effusion and Pulmonary Embolism Secondary to Primary Mediastinal Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
Previous Article in Journal
Influence of Dietary Habits on Macular Pigment in Childhood
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 14
Issue 8
10.3390/jcm14082669
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparative Evaluation of Selected Methods for Assessing Gingival Phenotype

by
Anna Dziewulska
1,*,
Luiza Czerniawska-Kliman
1,
Agnieszka Droździk
2 and
Katarzyna Grocholewicz
1
1
Department of Interdisciplinary Dentistry, Pomeranian Medical University in Szczecin, 70-111 Szczecin, Poland
2
Laboratory of Preclinical Periodontology, Pomeranian Medical University in Szczecin, 70-111 Szczecin, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14(8), 2669; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14082669
Submission received: 18 March 2025 / Revised: 31 March 2025 / Accepted: 10 April 2025 / Published: 14 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Dentistry, Oral Surgery and Oral Medicine)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background/Objectives: The diagnostic assessment of soft and hard tissues surrounding the teeth, including gingival phenotype analysis, is critical for clinicians. Since multiple methods for evaluating gingival phenotype have been reported, determining the optimal approach for dental practitioners is essential. This study aimed to evaluate gingival phenotype using visual assessment (VA) and the periodontal probe transparency method (PTM) in the maxillary central incisors to confirm the superiority of the latter. Methods: This study included 103 individuals aged 22 to 29 years, all with a healthy periodontium, no history of medications, and no prior treatment affecting the gingiva. Two examiners assessed gingival phenotype using VA and the PTM with color-coded probes. Additionally, direct measurement (DM) with biometric ultrasonography was performed. Results: The correlations among VA, the PTM, and DM (Spearman’s rank correlation test) demonstrated robust consistency (r = 0.62–0.76, p < 0.001). There was medium to high agreement between VA and DM (r = 0.62–0.74, p < 0.001), as well as a medium to strong correlation between VA and the PTM (r = 0.63–0.76, p < 0.001), indicating no superiority of the color-coded probe transparency method. Conclusions: Both VA and the PTM with a color-coded probe are reliable for identifying the gingival phenotype in the maxillary anterior region when compared to direct biometric measurement.

1. Introduction

In the era of esthetic dentistry, awareness of all the factors influencing the final treatment outcome is crucial [1]. The diagnostic assessment of soft and hard tissues surrounding the teeth and implants, including analysis of the gingival phenotype, is a critical aspect for clinicians [2,3]. The term ‘gingival phenotype’ is widely used to describe the bucco-lingual dimension and the width of the keratinized tissues [4,5].
The 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions recommended adopting the term ‘periodontal phenotype’. However, other reports from this workshop still used the term “periodontal biotype” to analyze the mucogingival status in the natural dentition [6,7].
Periodontal phenotype refers to the combination of gingival phenotype and bone morphotype, while gingival phenotype is determined by gingival thickness (GT) and keratinized tissue width [6]. Evaluation of the gingival or/and periodontal phenotype plays a crucial role not only in maintaining periodontal health but also in the decision-making process for periodontal, restorative, prosthetic, implant, or orthodontic therapy [8]. The anatomy of the periodontium, including gingival thickness, influences its response to various physical and chemical stimuli (e.g., excessive brushing or dental treatment) as well as bacterial invasion [9,10].
A simple and commonly used method of assessing the gingival phenotype is visual evaluation. However, it has been proven that it cannot be considered an objective assessment method, as it accurately diagnoses only about half of the cases and largely depends on the clinician’s experience [11]. Achieving the highest possible objectivity in gingival thickness assessment is crucial. Several techniques can be used to ensure the most reliable results. Although transgingival probing is a simple and commonly used method, it requires local anesthesia. The injection of an anesthetic solution may cause patient discomfort and can temporarily increase local tissue volume [12]. Another commonly used method for assessing gingival thickness is placing a periodontal probe in the gingival sulcus and observing tissue transparency. It is assumed that the probe will be visible when the gingiva is thin (GT ≤ 1 mm) and not visible when the gingiva is thick (GT > 1 mm). This test is highly reproducible, with an 85% agreement between repeated measurements [6,13]. Similarly, ultrasonic devices and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) demonstrate high diagnostic accuracy in assessing gingival thickness [14,15,16]. However, CBCT radiation exposure is generally not justified for this specific indication, and ultrasonic devices can be expensive.
Since several methods for evaluating gingival phenotype have been reported, it seems advisable to establish optimal recommendations for dental practitioners. Furthermore, it has been shown that gingival thickness (GT) can vary between individuals due to factors such as age, sex, tooth-related variations, and the impact of the testing method [17]. Knowledge of gingival phenotype properties and their consideration is essential for planning multidisciplinary treatment (periodontal, prosthetic, implant, or orthodontic), enabling the clinician to avoid complications and achieve optimal esthetics [3,18]. On the other hand, there is no consensus in the literature regarding which method of gingival phenotype assessment is the most suitable for everyday practice.
Therefore, the objective of the present study was to evaluate gingival phenotype using visual and periodontal probe transparency methods in the maxillary central incisors. The null hypothesis was that the periodontal probe transparency technique is not superior to the visual assessment method.

2. Materials and Methods

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (latest version, 2013), and the protocol was approved by the Bioethics Committee at the Pomeranian Medical University in Szczecin (PUM), with decision reference No. KB-0012/147/17. The study group consisted of 103 participants, aged 22 to 29 years. The post hoc power analysis confirms that the study achieves >90% power for the observed effect sizes, validating its adequacy (see sample size justification in Section 2.2). Study participants were selected based on specific criteria from patients of the Department of Interdisciplinary Dentistry at PUM who reported for preventive treatments. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (-) healthy young individuals aged 20–30 years, (-) no history of systemic diseases, and (-) complete dentition. Exclusion criteria included the following: (-) use of medications known to influence gingival tissue, (-) periodontal disease, (-) fillings and reconstructions located at the gingival line or subgingivally, (-) severe crowding or history of orthodontic treatment, (-) pregnancy or breastfeeding, and (-) smoking or use of other tobacco products.
Participation in the study was voluntary, and each participant provided written informed consent.

2.1. Phenotype Evaluation

For the evaluation of the gingival phenotype, three clinical techniques were used. The first method was a visual assessment (VA) in the anterior maxilla region, based on the typical characteristics of the thin and thick phenotype [19]. This was followed by an assessment using the probe transparency method (PTM) with a Colorvue biotype probe (Hu-Friedy, Chicago, IL, USA) [20]. In consecutive order, three probes were inserted into the gingival sulcus of the central upper incisors in a specific sequence: white, green, and blue. The transparency of marginal tissues was observed. The phenotype was then classified as thin, medium, or thick. The visibility of the white tip indicated a thin phenotype. If the white tip was not visible but the green tip was, the phenotype was classified as medium. If the green tip was not visible but the blue tip was, the phenotype was classified as thick. The probe insertion followed the standard technique for probing the gingival sulcus. Both VA and the PTM were conducted by two previously calibrated examiners (A.D.; L.C.-K). Their calibration process, conducted before this study, involved training sessions with a set of 10 volunteers at two week intervals to minimize recall bias while ensuring the stability of gingival conditions. Intra-rater reliability was quantified using Cohen’s kappa. For VA, rater 1 achieved a Cohen’s kappa of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.76–1.00, p < 0.001), and rater 2 achieved a kappa of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.71–0.99, p < 0.001). For the PTM, rater 1’s kappa was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.63–0.93, p < 0.001) for the upper right central incisor and 0.80 (95% CI: 0.66–0.94, p < 0.001) for the left, while rater 2’s kappa was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.59–0.91, p < 0.001) and 0.77 (95% CI: 0.62–0.92, p < 0.001), respectively. The final evaluation involved direct measurement (DM) of gingiva thickness at the mid-buccal aspect of the central incisors. In addition to the keratinized gingiva, the free gingiva was also evaluated as the anatomical structure directly related to the probe transparency method. The measurements were taken using the PIROP ultrasonic biometer (EchoSon, Puławy, Poland) with a fine transducer head (1.7 mm) (device frequency—20 MHz; ultrasonic impulse velocity—1540 m/s; accuracy up to 0.01 mm) [21]. Each tooth was measured in triplicate by a single researcher (A.Dr), an experienced periodontist trained and calibrated with ultrasound measurements [5,21,22,23]. The final thickness value used for analysis was the arithmetic mean of three measurements, each automatically calculated by the device based on ten correctly performed measurements per measurement point.

2.2. Statistical Analysis

Sample size justification:
–
To detect a moderate Spearman’s correlation (r = 0.3) between gingival assessment methods (e.g., VA vs. PTM) with α = 0.05 and power (1 − β) = 0.8, a minimum of 85 participants were required (correlation analysis),
–
For Fleiss’ kappa, detecting substantial agreement (kappa = 0.7) between two raters across two or three categories (e.g., thin/thick or thin/medium/thick) requires approximately 50–60 participants for 80% power at α = 0.05 (inter-rater agreement),
–
The Wilcoxon signed-rank test, used to compare gingival parameters between right and left incisors, requires approximately 34 pairs for a medium effect size (d = 0.5, α = 0.05, 1 − β = 0.8) (paired comparison).
To estimate the type I error in statistical analysis, a standard significance level of α = 0.05 was adopted. This means that the tolerated risk of rejecting a true null hypothesis (Type I error) is 5%. The Shapiro–Wilk test was applied to assess the normality of the data distribution.
For characterizing the distributions of quantitative variables, basic descriptive statistics were used. Due to deviations from normality in all examined gingival phenotype parameters, the median (Mdn) was chosen as the measure of central tendency. Data dispersion was described using the first (Q1) and third (Q3) quartiles, which are measures of location.
For comparing differences between two dependent groups, where the variable distributions were not normal, the non-parametric Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney rank-sum test for paired data was applied.
The agreement of categorical variable assessments between two evaluators was examined using Fleiss’ kappa. Correlations between gingival phenotype parameters were estimated using Spearman’s method, and p-values were calculated based on the asymptotic approximation of the t-distribution.
To investigate the multifactorial impact of demographic factors on gingival phenotype parameters, while accounting for the repeatability of measurements (left and right side of the upper incisors), a linear mixed model with a robust estimator (RLMER) was used.
The 95% confidence intervals (CI 95%) and p-values of the adjusted model were determined using an approximation based on Student’s t-distribution.
The analyses were conducted using the R statistical language (version 4.3.1) [24] on a Windows 10 Pro 64-bit system (build 19,045; Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA), with the following packages: lme4 [25], irr [26], robustlmm [27], sjPlot [28], report [29], ggstatsplot [30], and gtsummary [31].

3. Results

The results were analyzed for N = 103 patients, 74 females (72.55%) and 28 males (27.45%), with a median age (Mdn) of 25.0 years (minimum of 22.0 years, maximum of 29.0 years).

3.1. Visual Assessment of Gingival Phenotype

The results of the visual assessment of gingival phenotype by the two independent raters are shown in Table 1.
The percentage distribution of evaluation between the researchers is quite similar with only a slight difference in the perception of gingival phenotype. The estimated Fleiss’ kappa score of 0.88 for the subjective assessment of gingival phenotypes indicates a very good agreement between the two evaluators. A z-value of 8.91 and p < 0.001 indicate statistical significance of this agreement.
To address potential gender-related differences in gingival phenotype, the distributions of the visually assessed gingival phenotype was analyzed. Among females, 55.41% (n = 41) were classified as exhibiting a thin gingival phenotype, compared to 42.86% (n = 12) among males, with thick phenotypes comprising 44.59% (n = 33) and 57.14% (n = 16), respectively. The difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.258, Pearson’s Chi-squared test), indicating that gender does not significantly influence the visually assessed gingival phenotype.

3.2. Assessment of Gingival Phenotype with Probe Transparency Method

Table 2 presents the analysis of gingival phenotype distribution using the probe transparency method with color-coded probes conducted by two researchers. The upper right and left central incisors were evaluated as they are important in esthetics and phenotype assessment.
The similarity in assessments between the researchers for the upper right central incisor is high, as reflected in the closely matching percentage values for the respective gingival phenotype categories. Both researchers classify the majority of cases as medium gingival phenotypes (62.14%). The differences in the assessment of the thin (19.42% vs. 20.39%) and thick (18.45% vs. 17.48%) phenotypes were minimal.
Similar relationships were observed for the upper left central incisor. The most frequently identified phenotype was the medium phenotype, and the percentage differences for the thin and thick phenotypes were minimal, indicating no significant discrepancies in evaluation.
The closely matching percentage values for the respective gingival phenotype categories confirms the consistency in gingival phenotype assessments using the PTM conducted by two independent raters. In assessing consistency between raters, the kappa values for overall gingival phenotype differentiation demonstrate substantial concordance, with values of 0.70 for the upper right central incisor and 0.74 for the upper left central incisor. Both results are statistically significant (p < 0.001), further supporting the reliability of assessments (Table 3).
The highest observed agreement in the assessment was for the thin gingival phenotype (kappa = 0.82 and 0.73), suggesting that evaluators can distinguish this particularly delicate gingival phenotype with high certainty.
Significant gender differences were observed (p = 0.008, Fisher’s exact test). Females predominantly exhibited a medium phenotype (70.27%, N = 52), with fewer cases of thin (17.57%, N = 13) and thick (12.16%, N = 9) phenotypes. In contrast, males showed a more even distribution, with 25% (N = 7) thin, 35.71% (N = 10) thick, and 39.29% (N = 11) medium phenotypes. The higher prevalence of thick phenotypes in males and medium phenotypes in females contributed to this significant difference.

3.3. Assessment of the Thickness of Free and Keratinized Gingiva

The distributions of free and keratinized gingiva thickness around the upper central incisors are presented in Table 4.
Neither the free nor keratinized gingiva thickness differed significantly between the right and left central incisors (p = 0.589 and p = 0.786, respectively), indicating that the gingival phenotype around both incisors is comparable.

3.4. Correlation Assessment of Methods for Assessing Gingival Phenotype

The analysis aims to clarify how the visual and color-coded probe transparency of subjective assessments align with measurements of free and keratinized gingiva thickness performed ultrasonically with the use of Pirop. The results are presented in Table 5, with Spearman’s r, 95% CIs, and p-values for each pairwise comparison.
The results confirmed consistency across free and keratinized gingiva at both incisors.
The correlations among visual, probe transparency, and direct measurement methods demonstrated robust consistency (r = 0.62–0.76, p < 0.001). Moderate to high agreement across the visual method and direct measurement (r = 0.62–0.74, p < 0.001) as well as a moderate to strong correlation between visual and probe transparency methods (r = 0.63–0.76, p < 0.001) challenge the null hypothesis by showing no superiority of the color-coded probe transparency method.

4. Discussion

Clinicians’ understanding of thin and thick periodontal phenotypes, along with their relevance in modern therapies, is essential for achieving optimal treatment outcomes—not only in terms of esthetics but also for long-term soft tissue stability around teeth and implants [2,32,33,34,35,36]. It is well known that positive correlations exist between gingival thickness, keratinized tissue width, bone morphotype, and treatment outcomes in various fields of dentistry [3].
The purpose of our study was to evaluate gingival phenotype using common methods and tools easy to employ in clinical practice. All techniques used in our experiment were non-invasive. Our assessment focused on a young population and maxillary central incisors. The age range was chosen to ensure a relatively homogeneous sample, minimizing potential confounding factors such as age-related periodontal tissue changes. Younger individuals usually exhibit stable gingival status with minimal recession or disease-related changes [37]. Central incisors are among teeth commonly studied in gingival phenotype research due to their particular significance in esthetics. Their susceptibility to recessions justifies their role in periodontal and restorative therapy, as well as in orthodontic treatment planning [38]. Additionally, the visual assessed and translucent probe methods assessed in daily practice appear to be particularly useful in the esthetic zone [13]. In the posterior teeth, evaluating the gingival phenotype before prosthetic reconstructions or implant placement requires adherence to specific recommendations regarding gingival thickness and width, making accurate measurement essential [7].
Many studies assessing maxillary anterior teeth have confirmed a positive correlation between periodontal phenotype, gingival thickness (GT), and keratinized tissue with (KTW) [39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46].
One of the methods used to assess the gingival phenotype, including in our study, is visual assessment. This method is simple and does not require instruments—only knowledge of the characteristics typical of different phenotypes. Although the literature considers the visual assessment of gingival phenotype to be unreliable [11,19], our study noted very good agreement between the two examiners (kappa score of 0.88). This consistency may be attributed to the comparable clinical experience of both investigators, which could have influenced their evaluations of thick and thin gingival phenotypes. While the literature suggests that visual assessment cannot serve as a primary or highly accurate method for determining gingival phenotype [11,19,34], it can still be a useful tool for experienced clinicians.
The second method for phenotype assessment tested in our study was the probe transparency method. Recommended by the World Workshop experts, this method assumes that the probe is visible through the free gingiva in the thin periodontal phenotype (≤1 mm) and not visible in the thick periodontal phenotype (>1 mm) [6].
When determining gingival phenotype using this method, a metal periodontal probe is typically applied; however, an alternative is the phenotype probe, which has a colored tip (white, green, or blue) [34] and was used in our study. Although this method differentiates only two of the three recognized gingival phenotypes [7,11,13,17]—identifying the thin phenotype (corresponding to ‘thin-scalloped’) but not distinguishing between thick-scalloped’ and ‘thick-flat’—it remains highly reliable and reproducible [21,47]. Furthermore, it is one of the most commonly used techniques for analyzing gingival phenotype [6,13,34,47,48,49,50].
The present study revealed similar results obtained by both examiners while applying the probe transparency method, with a kappa score ranging from 0.67 for the medium to 0.82 for the thin gingival phenotype. This suggests that the method has a high degree of repeatability and can be a reliable technique for assessing gingival phenotype around teeth and implants [51,52]. The highest observed agreement was for the thin gingival phenotype, indicating that evaluators were able to distinguish this particularly delicate phenotype with high certainty. Although often considered the gold-standard [53], some studies have shown that the probe transparency method is not entirely accurate in categorizing gingival phenotypes unless the thickness is below 0.6 mm or exceeds 1.2 mm [11,47,54].
The results of the phenotype assessment using two assessors in our study were compared with biometric measurements. For this purpose, an ultrasonic biometer was used. Its ultrasonic transducer, specially designed for measurement in the oral cavity, has a head with a diameter of 1.7 mm, reducing the difficulty in maintaining proper positioning [55]. According to the literature, ultrasonic measurement is as precise as a digital vernier caliper and more accurate and faster than invasive methods such as transgingival probing [21,56,57]. Some studies indicate that ultrasonic devices are the least invasive method for measuring gingival thickness (GT) [47,58]. The validity and reliability of the ultrasonic method have been confirmed to be excellent [14], especially in the hands of a trained clinician [21,26,50,51,52,53,54]. Therefore, biometric measurements were used in our study to compare the tested methods, as they are more suitable for research purposes rather than for routine clinical use due to its cost-effectiveness concerns [12,47].
The analysis of the correlations among the visual, probe transparency, and direct measurement methods in our study demonstrated close agreement (Spearman’s r from 0.62 to 0.76, p < 0.001). Moderate to high agreement was observed between the visual method and direct measurement (Spearman’s r from 0.62 to 0.74, p < 0.001), as well as a moderate to strong correlation between the visual and probe transparency methods (Spearman’s r from 0.63 to 0.76, p < 0.001). These findings challenge the null hypothesis by demonstrating no clear superiority of the color-coded probe transparency method.
However, our findings should be interpreted with caution due to the following limitations:
–
The sample was drawn from a single department, which may introduce bias.
–
Central incisors cannot represent all teeth.
–
We did not consider tooth position, its relation to the alveolar process, overjet, or overbite, all of which influence gingival phenotype.
–
We did not account for gingival pigmentation, which may affect the outcome of the probe transparency technique.
Future research should focus on developing a simple, quick, reliable, and cost-effective phenotype assessment method for everyday clinical practice. Additionally, studies on a large, age-diverse population should not only focus on natural dentition but also consider soft tissue around dental implants. Once a consensus in phenotype detection for both teeth and implants is reached through validated diagnostic methods, clinical protocols can be developed to improve esthetics and function after treatment while minimizing the risk of complications.

5. Conclusions

Within the limitation of our study, it can be concluded that both visual assessment (VA) and the probe transparency method (PTM) with a color-coded probe serve as reliable tools for periodontal phenotype assessment in the maxillary anterior region when compared to direct biometric measurement. The key findings of this study—very good agreement between the two examiners, as well as high agreement across the tested methods—confirm their clinical applicability and implications for interdisciplinary treatment planning.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.D. (Agnieszka Droździk) and A.D. (Anna Dziewulska); methodology, A.D. (Agnieszka Droździk); software, L.C.-K.; validation, K.G. and A.D. (Agnieszka Droździk); formal analysis, A.D. (Anna Dziewulska) and K.G.; investigation, A.D. (Anna Dziewulska) and L.C.-K.; resources, A.D. (Anna Dziewulska) and L.C.-K.; data curation, A.D. (Agnieszka Droździk) and K.G.; writing—original draft preparation, A.D. (Anna Dziewulska) and L.C.-K.; writing—review and editing, K.G. and A.D. (Agnieszka Droździk); visualization, A.D. (Anna Dziewulska); supervision, K.G.; project administration, A.D. (Anna Dziewulska); funding acquisition, K.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the statutory budget of the Department of Interdisciplinary Dentistry, Pomeranian Medical University in Szczecin, Poland.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Bioethics Committee of Pomeranian Medical University in Szczecin, decision reference No. KB-0012/147/17 (approved on 18 December 2017).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to privacy and ethical reasons.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Cunha, J.; Fernandes, G.V.O.; Fernandes, J.C.H.; Lopes, P.C.; Rio, R. The Interference of Age and Gender on Smile Characterization Analyzed on Six Parameters: A Clinical-Photographic Pilot Study. Medicina 2023, 59, 595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. da Silva, D.M.; Castro, F.; Martins, B.; Fraile, J.F.; Fernandes, J.C.H.; Fernandes, G.V.O. The influence of the gingival phenotype on implant survival rate and clinical parameters: A systematic review. Evid. Based Dent 2025. ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Kumar, P.K.; Nagate, R.R.; Chaturvedi, S.; Al-Ahmari, M.M.M.; Al-Qarni, M.A.; Gokhale, S.T.; Ahmed, A.R.; Bariqi, A.A.; Cicciù, M.; Minervini, G. Importance of periodontal phenotype in periodontics and restorative dentistry: A systematic review. BMC Oral Health 2024, 24, 41. [Google Scholar]
  4. Shah, R.; Sowmya, N.K.; Thomas, R.; Mehta, D.S. Periodontal biotype: Basics and clincal considerations. J. Inter. Dent. 2016, 6, 44–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kus-Bartoszek, A.; Lipski, M.; Jarząbek, A.; Manowiec, J.; Marek, E.; Droździk, A. Evaluation of gingival phenotype in the early transitional dentition phase in children-comparison of three non-invasive methods. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 5897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Jepsen, S.; Caton, J.G.; Albandar, J.M.; Bissada, N.F.; Bouchard, P.; Cortellini, P.; Demirel, K.; de Sanctis, M.; Ercoli, C.; Fan, J.; 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. Periodontol. 2018, 89, 237–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Cortellini, P.; Bissada, N.F. Mucogingival conditions in the natural dentition: Narrative review, case definitions, and diagnostic considerations. J. Periodontol. 2018, 89, 204–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kao, R.T.; Curtis, D.A.; Kim, D.M.; Lin, G.H.; Wang, C.W.; Cobb, C.M.; Hsu, Y.T.; Kan, J.; Velasquez, D.; Avila-Ortiz, G.; et al. American Academy of Periodontology best evidence consensus statement on modifying periodontal phenotype in preparation for orthodontic and restorative treatment. J. Periodontol. 2020, 91, 289–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Litonja, L.A.; Andreana, S.; Bush, P.J.; Tobias, T.S.; Cohen, R.E. Wedged cervical lesions produced by toothbrushing. Am. J. Dent. 2004, 17, 237–240. [Google Scholar]
  10. Kao, R.T.; Pasquinelli, K. Thick vs. thin gingival tissue: A key determinant in tissue response to disease and restorative treatment. J. Calif. Dent. Assoc. 2002, 30, 521–526. [Google Scholar]
  11. Eghbali, A.; De Rouck, T.; De Bruyn, H.; Cosyn, J. The gingival biotype assessed by experienced and inexperienced clinicians. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2009, 36, 958–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Ronay, V.; Sahrmann, P.; Bindl, A.; Attin, T.; Schmidlin, P.R. Current status and perspectives of mucogingival soft tissue measurement methods. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2011, 23, 146–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. 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, 428–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Eger, T.; Müller, H.P.; Heinecke, A. Ultrasonic determination of gingival thickness. Subject variation and influence of tooth type and clinical features. J. Clin. Periodontol. 1996, 23, 839–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Müller, H.P.; Barrieeshi-Nusair, K.M.; Kononen, E. Repeatability of ultrasonic determination of gingival thickness. Clin. Oral Investig. 2007, 11, 439–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Benavides, E.; Rios, H.P.; Ganz, S.D.; An, C.H.; Resnik, R.; Reardon, G.T.; Feldman, S.J.; Mah, J.K.; Hatcher, D.; Kim, M.J.; et al. Use of cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: The International Congress of Oral Implantologists consensus report. Implant. Dent. 2012, 21, 78–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zweers, J.; Thomas, R.Z.; Slot, D.E.; Weisgold, A.S.; Van der Weijden, F.G. Charakteristics of periodontal biotype, its dimensions, associations and prevalence: A systemic review. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2014, 41, 958–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kahn, S.; Rodrigues, W.J.D.P.R.; Dias, A.T.; Resende, R.; Fernandes, J.C.H.; Fernandes, G.V.O. Crown lengthening surgery in the esthetic area for optimized results: A review with surgical recommendations. Surgeries 2024, 5, 1043–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cuny-Houchmand, M.; Renaudin, S.; Leroul, M.; Planche, L.; Guehennec, L.L.; Soueidan, A. Gingival biotype assessment: Visual inspection relevance and maxillary versus mandibular comparison. Open Dent, J. 2013, 7, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Rasperini, G.; Acunzo, R.; Cannalire, P.; Farronato, G. Influence of Periodontal Biotype on Root Surface Exposure During Orthodontic Treatment: A Preliminary Study. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2015, 35, 665–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ganti, B.; Bednarz, W.; Komuves, K.; Vag, J. Reproducibility of the PIROP ultrasonic biometer for gingival thickness measurements. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2019, 31, 263–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Kus-Bartoszek, A.; Lipski, M.; Jarząbek, A.; Manowiec, J.; Droździk, A. Gingival Phenotype Changes and the Prevalence of Mucogingival Deformities during the Early Transitional Dentition Phase-A Two-Year Longitudinal Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2022, 25, 3899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Kus-Bartoszek, A.; Lipski, M.; Safranow, K.; Drozdzik, A. The attached gingiva thickness in the mandibular anterior region during the early transitional dentition phase. Quintessence Int. 2021, 52, 220–227. [Google Scholar]
  24. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  25. Bates, D.; Mächler, M.; Bolker, B.; Walker, S. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 2015, 67, 1–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gamer, M.; Lemon, J.; Fellows, I.; Singh, P. irr: Various Coefficients of Interrater Reliability and Agreement, R Package Version 0.84.1. 2019. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=irr (accessed on 26 January 2019).
  27. Koller, M. robustlmm: An R Package for Robust Estimation of Linear Mixed-Effects Models. J. Stat. Softw. 2016, 75, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lüdecke, D. sjPlot: Data Visualization for Statistics in Social Science, R Package Version 2.8.15; 2023. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sjPlot (accessed on 17 August 2023).
  29. Makowski, D.; Lüdecke, D.; Patil, I.; Thériault, R.; Ben-Shachar, M.; Wiernik, B. Automated Results Reporting as a Practical Tool to Improve Reproducibility and Methodological Best Practices Adoption. CRAN 2023. Available online: https://easystats.github.io/report/ (accessed on 8 December 2024).
  30. Patil, I. Visualizations with statistical details: The ‘ggstatsplot’ approach. J. Open Source Softw. 2021, 6, 3167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sjoberg, D.; Whiting, K.; Curry, M.; Lavery, J.; Larmarange, J. Reproducible Summary Tables with the gtsummary Package. R. J. 2021, 13, 570–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Marques, T.M.; Santos, N.B.; Montero, J.; Correia, A.; Fernandes, G.V. The effect of the interproximal creeping attachment in aesthetic site after root coverage surgery with VIST technique—A case report. Indian J. Dent. Res. 2023, 34, 90–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pini Prato, G.P.; Di Gianfilippo, R. On the value of the 2017 classification of phenotype and gingival recessions. J. Periodontol. 2021, 92, 613–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chambrone, L.; Garcia-Venezuela, F.S. Periodontal phenotype modification of complexes periodontal-orthodontic case scenarios: A clinical review on the applications of allogenous dermal matrix as an alternative to subepithelial connective tissue graft. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2023, 35, 158–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Santamaria, P.; Paolantonio, M.; Romano, L.; Serroni, M.; Rexhepi, I.; Secondi, L.; Paolantonio, G.; Sinjari, B.; De Ninis, P.; Femminella, B. Gingival phenotype changes after different periodontal plastic surgical techniques: A single -masked randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin. Oral Investig. 2023, 27, 3423–3435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Merjohn, G.K.; Chambrone, L.; Brodsky, A.I.; Xenoud, P. Mandibular anterior lingual recession: Keratinized tissue grafting and minimally invasive harvesting. Clin. Adv. Periodontics 2021, 11, 201–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Huttner, E.A.; Machado, D.C.; de Oliveira, R.B.; Antunes, A.G.; Hebling, E. Effects of human aging on periodontal tissues. Spec. Care Dentist. 2009, 29, 149–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Johal, A.; Katsaros, C.; Kiliaridis, S.; Leitao, P.; Rosa, M.; Sculean, A.; Weiland, F.; Zachrisson, B. State of the science on controversial topics: Orthodontic therapy and gingival recession (a report of the Angle Society of Europe 2013 meeting). Prog. Orthod. 2013, 14, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Acunzo, R.; Gorbunkova, A.; Rezolla, M.; Bellucci, G.; Rasperini, G. Short-term effect of regular vs mini curettes on periodontal tissue according to phenotype: A randomized control clinical trial. Int. J. Esther. Dent. 2021, 16, 364–374. [Google Scholar]
  40. Pini Prato, G.; Di Gianfilippo, R.; Pannuti, C.M.; Allen, E.P.; Aroca, S.; Avila-Ortiz, G.; Bouchard, P.; Cairo, F.; Chackartchi, T.; Cortellini, P.; et al. Diagnostic reproducibility of the 2018 classification of gingival recession defects and gingival phenotype: A multicenter inter- and intra-examiner agreement study. J. Periodontol. 2023, 94, 661–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Yilmaz, B.T.; Comerdov, E.; Kutuk, C.; Nart, J.; Keceli, H.G. Modified coronally advanced tunnel versus epithelialized free gingival graft technique in gingival phenotype modification: A comparative randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin. Oral Investig. 2022, 26, 6283–6293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Said, K.N.; Abu Khalid, A.S.; Farook, F.F. Anatomic factors influencing dimensions of soft tissue graft from the hard palate. A clinical study. Clin. Exp. Dent. Res. 2020, 6, 462–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sirrinirund, B.; Wang, I.; Ramadan, G.; Kripfgans, O.D.; Chan, H. Ridge augumentation planning, wound healing evaluation, and peri-implant tissue phenotype assessment with ultrasonography: A case report. Clin. Adv. Peroodontics. 2024, 14, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Baroothi, S.; Tavelli, L.; Di Gianfilippo, R.; Shedden, K.; Oh, T.J.; Rasperini, G.; Neiva, R.; Giannobile, W.V.; Wang, H.L. Soft tissue phenotype modification predicts gingival margin long-term (10 year) stability: Longitudinal analysis of six randomized clinical trials. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2022, 49, 672–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Agudio, G.; Chambrone, L.; Selvaggi, F.; Pini-Prato, G.P. Effect of gingival augmentation procedure (free gingival graft) on reducing the risk of non-carious cervical lesions: A 24-to 30-year follow-up study. J. Periodontol. 2019, 90, 1235–1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Romano, L.; Paolantonio, M.; De Ninis, P.; Saleh, M.H.A.; Sinjari, B.; Xhajanka, E.; Femminella, B.; Wang, H.L.; Ravidá, A. Minimally invasive gingival phenotype modification in gingival recession associated with a non-carious cervical lesion using the root plastique technique: A quasi-experimental one-group pretest-posttest study. J. Periodontol. 2023, 94, 641–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kan, J.Y.; Marimoto, T.; Rungcharassaeng, K.; Roe, P.; Smith, D.H. Gingival biotype assessment in the esthetic zone: Visual versus direct measurement. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2010, 30, 237–243. [Google Scholar]
  48. Fu, J.H.; Yeh, C.Y.; Chan, H.L.; Tatarakis, N.; Leong, D.J.M.; Wang, H.L. Tissue biotype and its relation to the underlying bone morphology. J. Periodontol. 2010, 81, 569–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Fisher, K.R.; Richter, T.; Kebschull, M.; Petersen, N.; Fickl, S. On the relationship between gingival biotypes and gingival thickness in young Caucasians. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2015, 6, 865–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Fischer, K.R.; Kunzlberger, A.; Donos, N.; Fickl, S.; Friedmann, A. Gingival biotype revisited-novel classification and assessment tool. Clin. Oral Investig. 2018, 22, 443–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Shrestha, S.; Goel, K.; Niraula, S.R. Assessment of gingival biotypes in patients visiting a tertiary care centre in eastern Nepal. J. Nepal. Health Res. Counc. 2020, 14, 472–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kan, J.Y.K.; Rungcharassaeng, K.; Umezu, K.; Kois, J.C. Dimensions of peri-implantmucosa: An evaluation of maxillary anterior single implants in humans. J. Periodontol. 2003, 74, 557–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Frost, N.A.; Mealey, B.L.; Jones, A.A.; Huynh-Ba, G. Periodontal biotype: Gingival thickness as it relates to probe visibility and buccal plate thickness. J. Periodontol. 2015, 86, 1141–1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Machado Alves, P.H.; Lira Pacheno Alves, T.C.; Pegoraro, T.A.; Costa, Y.M.; Bonfante, E.A.; Fraga de Almeida, A.L.P. Measurement properties of gingival biotype evaluation methods. Clin. Implant. Relat. Res. 2018, 20, 280–284. [Google Scholar]
  55. Daly, C.H.; Wheeler, J.B. The use of ultrasonic thickness measurement in the clinical evaluation of the oral soft tissues. Int. Dent. J. 1971, 21, 418–429. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  56. Sharma, S.; Thakur, S.L.; Joshi, S.K.; Kulkarni, S.S. Measurement of gingival thickness using digital vernier caliper and ultrasonographic method: A comparative study. J. Investig. Cain Dent. 2014, 5, 138–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Savitha, B.; Vandana, K.L. Comparative assessment of gingival thickness using transgingival probing and ultrasonographic method. Indian J. Dent. Res. 2005, 16, 135–139. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  58. Malpartida-Carrillo, V.; Tinedo-Lopez, P.L.; Guerrero, M.E.; Amaya-Pajares, S.P.; Özcan, M.; Rösing, C.K. Periodontal phenotype: A review of historical and current classifications evaluating different methods and characteristics. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2021, 33, 432–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Distribution of visual assessment (VA) of gingival phenotype by rater.
Table 1. Distribution of visual assessment (VA) of gingival phenotype by rater.
PhenotypeRater 1,
N = 103 (%)		Rater 2,
N = 103 (%)
thin54 (52.43%)53 (51.96%)
thick49 (47.57%)50 (48.04%)
N—sample size.
Table 2. The distribution of gingival phenotype assessed by using the probe transparency method (PTM) in the area of the upper central incisors between raters.
Table 2. The distribution of gingival phenotype assessed by using the probe transparency method (PTM) in the area of the upper central incisors between raters.
Rater 1,
N = 103 (%)		Rater 2,
N = 103 (%)
Upper right central incisor
thin20 (19.42%)21 (20.39%)
medium64 (62.14%)64 (62.14%)
thick19 (18.45%)18 (17.48%)
Upper left central incisor
thin17 (16.67%)18 (17.48%)
medium70 (68.63%)69 (67.01%)
thick15 (14.71%)16 (15.46%)
N—sample size.
Table 3. Consistency of gingival phenotype assessments with probe transparency method (PTM), N = 103.
Table 3. Consistency of gingival phenotype assessments with probe transparency method (PTM), N = 103.
CategoryUpper Right Central IncisorUpper Left Central Incisor
KappapKappap
Overall, including the following:0.70<0.0010.74<0.001
thin0.73<0.0010.82<0.001
medium0.67<0.0010.70<0.001
thick0.70<0.0010.71<0.001
Kappa—Fleiss’ kappa; p—p-value.
Table 4. The distributions of free and keratinized gingiva thickness evaluated using direct ultrasonic measurement, categorized by the side of the central upper incisor.
Table 4. The distributions of free and keratinized gingiva thickness evaluated using direct ultrasonic measurement, categorized by the side of the central upper incisor.
CharacteristicNCentral Upper Incisorp b
Right,
N = 103 a		Left,
N = 103 a
Thickness of free gingiva (mm)1030.96 (0.68. 1.13)0.93 (0.72. 1.09)0.589
Keratinized gingival thickness (mm)1030.97 (0.80. 1.09)0.94 (0.81. 1.09)0.786
a Mdn—median (Q1—first quartile (25%), Q3—third quartile); b Wilcoxon signed-rank test for paired data; N—sample size; p—p-value.
Table 5. The correlation of methods for assessing gingival phenotype.
Table 5. The correlation of methods for assessing gingival phenotype.
VariableComparisonSpearman’s r95% CIp-Value
Upper right central incisor
Free gingivaVA vs. PTM0.710.61–0.80<0.001
VA vs. DM0.620.50–0.72<0.001
PTM vs. DM0.670.55–0.76<0.001
Keratinized gingivaVA vs. PTM0.690.58–0.78<0.001
VA vs. DM0.640.52–0.74<0.001
PTM vs. DM0.660.54–0.76<0.001
Upper left central incisor
free gingivaVA vs. PTM0.760.66–0.85<0.001
VA vs. DM0.740.63–0.84<0.001
PTM vs. DM0.750.66–0.84<0.001
Keratinized gingivaVA vs. PTM0.630.51–0.73<0.001
VA vs. DM0.630.52–0.73<0.001
PTM vs. DM0.690.59–0.78<0.001
CI = confidence interval. p-values < 0.05 indicate statistical significance.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dziewulska, A.; Czerniawska-Kliman, L.; Droździk, A.; Grocholewicz, K. Comparative Evaluation of Selected Methods for Assessing Gingival Phenotype. J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14, 2669. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14082669

AMA Style

Dziewulska A, Czerniawska-Kliman L, Droździk A, Grocholewicz K. Comparative Evaluation of Selected Methods for Assessing Gingival Phenotype. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2025; 14(8):2669. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14082669

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dziewulska, Anna, Luiza Czerniawska-Kliman, Agnieszka Droździk, and Katarzyna Grocholewicz. 2025. "Comparative Evaluation of Selected Methods for Assessing Gingival Phenotype" Journal of Clinical Medicine 14, no. 8: 2669. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14082669

APA Style

Dziewulska, A., Czerniawska-Kliman, L., Droździk, A., & Grocholewicz, K. (2025). Comparative Evaluation of Selected Methods for Assessing Gingival Phenotype. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 14(8), 2669. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14082669

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop