16 October 2020 : Clinical Research
In Vivo Evaluation of Periodontal Phenotypes Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography, Intraoral Scanning by Computer-Aided Design, and Prosthetic-Driven Implant Planning Technology
Magdalena Bednarz-Tumidajewicz1AB, Aleksandra Sender-Janeczek2EF, Jacek Zborowski2CDE, Tomasz Gedrange3DEF, Tomasz Konopka2CDE, Agata Prylińska-Czyżewska4BCD, Elżbieta Dembowska5EFG*, Wojciech Bednarz12ABCDOI: 10.12659/MSM.924469
Med Sci Monit 2020; 26:e924469
Table 2 Average values of gingival thickness at 3 measurement points within the area of teeth 13–23 using CAD/CBCT.
| Tooth | FGT | SGT | CGT | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | Mean (mm) | Min (mm) | Max (mm) | SD | n | Mean (mm) | Min (mm) | Max (mm) | SD | n | Mean (mm) | Min (mm) | Max (mm) | SD | |
| 23 | 30 | 0.66 | 0.50 | 0.90 | 0.11 | 30 | 1.32 | 0.90 | 1.70 | 0.22 | 30 | 0.70 | 0.30 | 1.00 | 0.17 |
| 22 | 30 | 0.78 | 0.60 | 1.10 | 0.14 | 30 | 1.57 | 0.70 | 2.50 | 0.38 | 30 | 0.81 | 0.40 | 1.20 | 0.18 |
| 21 | 30 | 0.83 | 0.60 | 1.30 | 0.15 | 30 | 1.65 | 0.90 | 2.30 | 0.30 | 30 | 0.95 | 0.50 | 1.60 | 0.24 |
| 11 | 30 | 0.88 | 0.60 | 1.60 | 0.19 | 30 | 1.79 | 1.50 | 2.40 | 0.23 | 30 | 0.99 | 0.50 | 1.70 | 0.30 |
| 12 | 30 | 0.90 | 0.60 | 1.90 | 0.25 | 30 | 1.71 | 1.10 | 2.40 | 0.30 | 30 | 0.96 | 0.70 | 1.40 | 0.22 |
| 13 | 30 | 0.80 | 0.60 | 1.20 | 0.14 | 30 | 1.45 | 1.10 | 1.90 | 0.21 | 30 | 0.83 | 0.50 | 1.30 | 0.22 |
| CAD/CBCT – computer-assisted design/cone beam computed tomography; CGT – crestal gingival thickness; FGT – free gingival thickness; SD – standard deviation; SGT – supracrestal gingival thickness. | |||||||||||||||