Limits...
Accuracy of cone-beam computerized tomography in determining the thickness of palatal masticatory mucosa.

Gupta P, Jan SM, Behal R, Mir RA, Shafi M - J Indian Soc Periodontol (2015 Jul-Aug)

Bottom Line: Statistical analysis determined that there was no significant difference between the two methods.Moreover, the tissue thickness was shown to increase as the distance from the gingival margin increased, and the tissue over the premolars was thicker than the other teeth.Cone-beam computerized tomography can be used as a noninvasive method to accurately and consistently determine the soft tissue thickness of the palatal masticatory mucosa with minimal bias at different locations on the palate.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Periodontics and Oral Implantology, Government Dental College, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India.

ABSTRACT

Background: The palatal masticatory mucosa is the main donor area of soft tissue and connective tissue grafts used for increasing the keratinized mucosa around teeth and implants, covering exposed roots and increasing localized alveolar ridge thickness. The aim of this study was to compare the thickness of the palatal masticatory mucosa as determined on a cone-beam computerized tomography scan versus thickness determined via bone-sounding.

Materials and methods: A total of 20 patients requiring palatal surgery participated. Thickness of the palatal tissue was measured at various points radiographically and clinically. The two techniques were compared to determine the agreement of the two measurement modalities.

Results: Statistical analysis determined that there was no significant difference between the two methods. Moreover, the tissue thickness was shown to increase as the distance from the gingival margin increased, and the tissue over the premolars was thicker than the other teeth.

Conclusion: Cone-beam computerized tomography can be used as a noninvasive method to accurately and consistently determine the soft tissue thickness of the palatal masticatory mucosa with minimal bias at different locations on the palate.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Clinical measurement of maxillary first premolar 2mm from the gingival margin
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4555796&req=5

Figure 3: Clinical measurement of maxillary first premolar 2mm from the gingival margin

Mentions: On the day of surgery, each patient was anesthetized for palatal surgery using 2% lignocaine with epinephrine. The gutta-percha was removed from the CBCT stent to expose the measurement points, and the stent was aligned correctly in the subject's mouth. The thickness of the palatal mucosa was then determined via bone-sounding through each measurement point perpendicular to the palatal tissue using a standardized UNC-15 Probe [Figure 3] and recorded by one investigator. Measurements were rounded to the nearest ½ mm when the value was not exactly on a marking line. Twelve total clinical measurements were taken on each subject.


Accuracy of cone-beam computerized tomography in determining the thickness of palatal masticatory mucosa.

Gupta P, Jan SM, Behal R, Mir RA, Shafi M - J Indian Soc Periodontol (2015 Jul-Aug)

Clinical measurement of maxillary first premolar 2mm from the gingival margin
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4555796&req=5

Figure 3: Clinical measurement of maxillary first premolar 2mm from the gingival margin
Mentions: On the day of surgery, each patient was anesthetized for palatal surgery using 2% lignocaine with epinephrine. The gutta-percha was removed from the CBCT stent to expose the measurement points, and the stent was aligned correctly in the subject's mouth. The thickness of the palatal mucosa was then determined via bone-sounding through each measurement point perpendicular to the palatal tissue using a standardized UNC-15 Probe [Figure 3] and recorded by one investigator. Measurements were rounded to the nearest ½ mm when the value was not exactly on a marking line. Twelve total clinical measurements were taken on each subject.

Bottom Line: Statistical analysis determined that there was no significant difference between the two methods.Moreover, the tissue thickness was shown to increase as the distance from the gingival margin increased, and the tissue over the premolars was thicker than the other teeth.Cone-beam computerized tomography can be used as a noninvasive method to accurately and consistently determine the soft tissue thickness of the palatal masticatory mucosa with minimal bias at different locations on the palate.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Periodontics and Oral Implantology, Government Dental College, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India.

ABSTRACT

Background: The palatal masticatory mucosa is the main donor area of soft tissue and connective tissue grafts used for increasing the keratinized mucosa around teeth and implants, covering exposed roots and increasing localized alveolar ridge thickness. The aim of this study was to compare the thickness of the palatal masticatory mucosa as determined on a cone-beam computerized tomography scan versus thickness determined via bone-sounding.

Materials and methods: A total of 20 patients requiring palatal surgery participated. Thickness of the palatal tissue was measured at various points radiographically and clinically. The two techniques were compared to determine the agreement of the two measurement modalities.

Results: Statistical analysis determined that there was no significant difference between the two methods. Moreover, the tissue thickness was shown to increase as the distance from the gingival margin increased, and the tissue over the premolars was thicker than the other teeth.

Conclusion: Cone-beam computerized tomography can be used as a noninvasive method to accurately and consistently determine the soft tissue thickness of the palatal masticatory mucosa with minimal bias at different locations on the palate.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus