首页> 外文期刊>The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry >Gingival biotype assessment in the esthetic zone: visual versus direct measurement.
【24h】

Gingival biotype assessment in the esthetic zone: visual versus direct measurement.

机译:审美区的牙龈生物型评估:视觉与直接测量。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

This study evaluated the reliability of assessing visually the facial gingival biotype of maxillary anterior teeth with and without the use of a periodontal probe in comparison with direct measurements. Forty-eight patients (20 men, 28 women) with a single failing maxillary anterior tooth participated in this study. Three methods were used to evaluate the thickness of the gingival biotype of the failing tooth: visual, periodontal probing, and direct measurement. Prior to extraction, the gingival biotype was identified as either thick or thin via visual assessment and assessment with a periodontal probe. After tooth extraction, direct measurement of the gingival thickness was performed to the nearest 0.1 mm using a tension-free caliper. The gingival biotype was considered thin if the measurement was =or<1.0 mm and thick if it measured>1.0 mm. The assessment methods were compared using the McNemar test at a significance level of a=.05. The mean gingival thickness obtained from direct measurements was 1.06+/-0.27 mm, with an equal distribution (50%) of sites with gingival thicknesses of =or<1 mm and >1 mm. The McNemar test showed a statistically significant difference when comparing the visual assessment with assessment using a periodontal probe (P=.0117) and direct measurement (P=.0001). However, there was no statistically significant difference when comparing assessment with a periodontal probe and direct measurement (P=.146). Assessment with a periodontal probe is an adequately reliable and objective method in evaluating gingival biotype, whereas visual assessment of the gingival biotype by itself is not sufficiently reliable compared to direct measurement.
机译:这项研究评估了直接测量与不使用牙周探针在视觉上评估上颌前牙面部齿龈生物型的可靠性。上颌前牙单个失败的四十八例患者(男20例,女28例)参加了这项研究。三种方法用于评估衰竭牙齿的牙龈生物型厚度:视觉,牙周探测和直接测量。在提取之前,通过视觉评估和牙周探针评估将牙龈生物型识别为厚或薄。拔牙后,使用无张力卡尺直接测量牙龈厚度至最接近0.1毫米。如果尺寸等于或小于1.0 mm,则认为牙龈生物型较薄;如果尺寸大于等于1.0 mm,则认为牙龈生物型较厚。使用McNemar检验在a = .05的显着性水平下比较了评估方法。通过直接测量获得的平均牙龈厚度为1.06 +/- 0.27 mm,牙龈厚度等于或小于1 mm且大于1 mm的部位分布均匀(50%)。当将视觉评估与使用牙周探针(P = .0117)和直接测量(P = .0001)的评估进行比较时,McNemar测试显示出统计学上的显着差异。但是,将评估与牙周探针和直接测量进行比较时,没有统计学上的显着差异(P = .146)。用牙周探针进行评估是评估牙龈生物型的足够可靠和客观的方法,而与直接测量相比,肉眼对牙龈生物型的视觉评估本身不够可靠。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号