Periodontal phenotype: A review of historical and current classifications evaluating different methods and characteristics
Corresponding Author
Violeta Malpartida-Carrillo DDS, MSc
Department of Periodontology, School of Stomatology, Universidad Privada San Juan Bautista, Lima, Peru
Correspondence
Violeta Malpartida-Carrillo, School of Stomatology, Universidad Privada San Juan Bautista, 302-304 Jose Antonio Lavalle Avenue, Chorrillos, Lima-Perú.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorPedro Luis Tinedo-Lopez DDS, MSc
Department of Periodontology, School of Stomatology, Universidad Privada San Juan Bautista, Lima, Peru
Search for more papers by this authorMaria Eugenia Guerrero DDS, PhD
Medico Surgical Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, Peru
Search for more papers by this authorSilvia P. Amaya-Pajares DDS, MSc
Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA
Search for more papers by this authorMutlu Özcan DDS, PhD
Center of Dental Medicine, Division of Dental Biomaterials, Clinic for Reconstructive Dentistry, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Search for more papers by this authorCassiano Kuchenbecker Rösing DDS, PhD
Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Violeta Malpartida-Carrillo DDS, MSc
Department of Periodontology, School of Stomatology, Universidad Privada San Juan Bautista, Lima, Peru
Correspondence
Violeta Malpartida-Carrillo, School of Stomatology, Universidad Privada San Juan Bautista, 302-304 Jose Antonio Lavalle Avenue, Chorrillos, Lima-Perú.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorPedro Luis Tinedo-Lopez DDS, MSc
Department of Periodontology, School of Stomatology, Universidad Privada San Juan Bautista, Lima, Peru
Search for more papers by this authorMaria Eugenia Guerrero DDS, PhD
Medico Surgical Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, Peru
Search for more papers by this authorSilvia P. Amaya-Pajares DDS, MSc
Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA
Search for more papers by this authorMutlu Özcan DDS, PhD
Center of Dental Medicine, Division of Dental Biomaterials, Clinic for Reconstructive Dentistry, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Search for more papers by this authorCassiano Kuchenbecker Rösing DDS, PhD
Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Objective
To review the historical and current periodontal phenotype classifications evaluating methods and characteristics. Moreover, to identify and classify the methods based on periodontal phenotype components.
Overview
Several gingival morphology studies have been frequently associated with different terms used causing confusion among the readers. In 2017, the World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions recommended to adopt the term “periodontal phenotype”. This term comprises two terms, gingival phenotype (gingival thickness and keratinized tissue width) and bone morphotype (buccal bone plate thickness). Furthermore, gingival morphology has been categorized on “thin-scalloped”, “thick-scalloped” and “thick-flat” considering the periodontal biotype. However, by definition, the term phenotype is preferred over biotype. Periodontal phenotype can be evaluated through clinical or radiographic assessments and may be divided into invasive/non-invasive (for gingival thickness), static/functional (for keratinized tissue width), and bi/tridimensional (for buccal bone plate thickness) methods.
Conclusions
“Thin-scalloped,” “thick-scalloped,” and “thick-flat” periodontal biotypes were identified. These three periodontal biotypes have been considered in the World Workshop but the term periodontal phenotype is recommended. Periodontal phenotype is the combination of the gingival phenotype and the bone morphotype. There are specific methods for periodontal phenotype evaluation.
Clinical significance
The term periodontal phenotype is currently recommended for future investigations about gingival phenotype and bone morphotype. “Thin-scalloped,” “thick-scalloped,” and “thick-flat” periodontal phenotypes can be evaluated through specific methods for gingival thickness, keratinized tissue width, and buccal bone plate thickness evaluation.
REFERENCES
- 1Abraham S, Deepak KT, Ambili R, Preeja C, Archana V. Gingival biotype and its clinical significance—a review. Saudi J Den Res. 2014; 5: 3-7.
10.1016/j.ksujds.2013.06.003 Google Scholar
- 2Cook R, Lim K. Update on perio-prosthodontics. Dent Clin N Am. 2019; 63: 157-174.
- 3Kim DM, Bassir SH, Nguyen TT. Effect of gingival phenotype on the maintenance of periodontal health: an American Academy of periodontology best evidence review. J Periodontol. 2020; 91: 311-338.
- 4Shah R, Sowmya NK, Thomas R, Mehta DS. Periodontal biotype: basics and clinical considerations. J Inter Dent. 2016; 6: 44-49.
- 5Seibert J, Lindhe J. Esthetics and periodontal therapy. In: J Lindhe, ed. Textbook of Clinical Periodontology. 2nd ed. Copenhagen, Denmark: Munksgaard; 1989: 477-514.
- 6Olsson M, Lindhe J, Marinello CP. On the relationship between crown form and clinical features of the gingiva in adolescents. J Clin Periodontol. 1993; 20: 570-577.
- 7Müller HP, Eger T. Gingival phenotypes in young male adults. J Clin Periodontol. 1997; 24: 65-71.
- 8Zweers J, Thomas RZ, Slot DE, Weisgold AS, van der Weijden FGA. Characteristics of periodontal biotype, its dimensions, associations and prevalence: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol. 2014; 41: 958-971.
- 9Jepsen S, Caton JG, Albandar JM, 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.
- 10Cortellini P, Bissada NF. Mucogingival conditions in the natural dentition: narrative review, case definitions, and diagnostic considerations. J Periodontol. 2018; 89: 204-213.
- 11Kennedy JE. Effect of inflammation on collateral circulation of the gingiva. J Periodontal Res. 1974; 9: 147-152.
- 12Fu JH, Yeh CY, Chan HL, Tatarakis N, Leong DJM, Wang HL. Tissue biotype and its relation to the underlying bone morphology. J Periodontol. 2010; 81: 569-574.
- 13Thoma DS, Mühlemann S, Jung RE. Critical soft-tissue dimensions with dental implants and treatment concepts. Periodontol 2000. 2014; 66: 106-118.
- 14Müller HP, Heinecke A, Schaller N, Eger T. Masticatory mucosa in subjects with different periodontal phenotypes. J Clin Periodontol. 2000; 27: 621-626.
- 15DeRouck T, Eghbali R, Collys K, et al. 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.
- 16Ciok E, Górski B, Fester A, Zadurska M. Methods of gingival biotype assessment. J Stoma. 2014; 67: 460-469.
10.5604/00114553.1118753 Google Scholar
- 17Hirschfeld I. A study of skulls in the American museum of natural history in relation to periodontal disease. J Dent Res. 1923; 5: 241-265.
10.1177/00220345230050040201 Google Scholar
- 18Wheeler RC. Textbook of Dental Anatomy and Physiology. Philadelphia & London: W. B. Saunders Co.; 1940.
- 19Ritchey B, Orban B. The crests of the interdental alveolar septa. J Periodontol. 1953; 24: 75-87.
10.1902/jop.1953.24.2.75 Google Scholar
- 20Morris ML. The position of the margin of the gingiva. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1958; 11: 969-984.
- 21TW O'C, Biggs N. Interproximal craters. J Periodontol. 1964; 35: 326-330.
- 22Ochsenbein C, Ross S. A reevaluation of osseous surgery. Dent Clin N Am. 1969; 13: 87-102.
- 23Weisgold AS. Contours of the full crown restoration. Alpha Omegan. 1977; 70: 77-89.
- 24Claffey N, Shanley D. Relationship of gingival thickness and bleeding to loss of probing attachment in shallow sites following nonsurgical periodontal therapy. J Clin Periodontol. 1986; 13: 654-657.
- 25Olsson M, Lindhe J. Periodontal characteristics in individuals with varying form of the upper central incisors. J Clin Periodontol. 1991; 18: 78-82.
- 26Kois JC. Altering gingival levels: the restorative connection. Part 1: biologic variables. J Esthet Restor Dent. 1994; 6: 3-7.
10.1111/j.1708-8240.1994.tb00825.x Google Scholar
- 27Anderegg CR, Metzler DG, Nicoll BK. Gingiva thickness in guided tissue regeneration and associated recession at facial furcation defects. J Periodontol. 1995; 66: 397-402.
- 28Harris RJ. A comparative study of root coverage obtained with guided tissue regeneration utilizing a bioabsorbable membrane versus the connective tissue with partial-thickness double pedicle graft. J Periodontol. 1997; 68: 779-790.
- 29Becker W, Ochsenbein C, Tibbetts L, Becker BE. Alveolar bone anatomic profiles as measured from dry skulls. Clinical ramifications. J Clin Periodontol. 1997; 24: 727-731.
- 30Sanavi F, Weisgold AS, Rose LF. Biologic width and its relation to periodontal biotypes. J Esthet Restor Dent. 1998; 10: 157-163.
- 31Kan 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: 557-562.
- 32Pontoriero R, Carnevale G. Surgical crown lengthening: a 12-month clinical wound healing study. J Periodontol. 2001; 72: 841-848.
- 33Aimetti M, Massei G, Morra M, Cardesi E, Romano F. Correlation between gingival phenotype and Schneiderian membrane thickness. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008; 23: 1128-1132.
- 34Januário AL, Barriviera M, Duarte WR. Soft tissue cone-beam computed tomography: a novel method for the measurement of gingival tissue and the dimensions of the dentogingival unit. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2008; 20: 366-373.
- 35Eghbali 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.
- 36Kan JY, Marimoto T, Rungcharassaeng K, Roe P, Smith DH. Gingival biotype assessment in the esthetic zone: visual versus direct measurement. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2010; 30: 237-243.
- 37Cook DR, Mealey BL, Verrett RG, et al. Relationship between clinical periodontal biotype and labial plate thickness: an in vivo study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2011; 31: 345-354.
- 38Fischer KR, 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; 26: 865-869.
- 39Nikiforidou M, Tsalikis L, Angelopoulos C, Menexes G, Vouros I, Konstantinides A. Classification of periodontal biotypes with the use of CBCT. A cross-sectional study. Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20: 2061-2071.
- 40Fischer KR, Künzlberger A, Donos N, Fickl S, Friedmann A. Gingival biotype revisited-novel classification and assessment tool. Clin Oral Investig. 2018; 22: 443-448.
- 41Kloukos D, Koukos G, Doulis I, Sculean A, Stavropoulos A, Katsaros C. Gingival thickness assessment at the mandibular incisors with four methods: a cross-sectional study. J Periodontol. 2018; 89: 1300-1309.
- 42 Merriam-webster.com [Internet]. Massachusetts: Merriam-webster Dictionary; [cited 2020 Aug 09]. https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/phenotype#medicalDictionary 2020.
- 43Avila-Ortiz G, Gonzales-Martin O, Couso-Queiruga E, Wang HL. The peri-implant phenotype. J Periodontol. 2020; 91: 283-288.
- 44Gonçalves Motta SH, Ferreira Camacho MP, Quintela DC, Santana RB. Relationship between clinical and histologic periodontal biotypes in humans. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2017; 37: 737-741.
- 45Strahan JD. Relation of mucogingival junction to alveolar bone margin. Acad Rev Calif Acad Periodontol. 1965; 13: 23-28.
- 46Easley JR. Methods of determining alveolar osseous form. J Periodontol. 1967; 38: 112-118.
- 47Greenberg J, Laster L, Listgarten MA. Transgingival probing as a potential estimator of alveolar bone level. J Periodontol. 1976; 47: 514-517.
- 48Kolte R, Kolte A, Mahajan A. Assessment of gingival thickness with regards to age, gender and arch location. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2014; 18: 478-481.
- 49Shao Y, Yin L, Gu J, Wang D, Lu W, Sun Y. Assessment of periodontal biotype in a young Chinese population using different measurement methods. Sci Rep. 2018; 8:11212.
- 50Tavelli L, Ravidà A, Saleh MHA, et al. Pain perception following epithelialized gingival graft harvesting: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2019; 23: 459-468.
- 51Maino GNE, Valles C, Santos A, Pascual A, Esquinas C, Nart J. Influence of suturing technique on wound healing and patient morbidity after connective tissue harvesting. A randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol. 2018; 45: 977-985.
- 52Gupta N, Hungund S, Astekar MS, Dodani K. Evaluation of palatal mucosal thickness and its association with age and gender. Biotech Histochem. 2014; 89: 481-487.
- 53Ronay V, Sahrmann P, Bindl A, Attin T, Schmidlin PR. Current status and perspectives of mucogingival soft tissue measurement methods. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2011; 23: 146-156.
- 54Goaslind GD, Robertson PB, Mahan CJ, Morrison WW, Olson JV. Thickness of facial gingiva. J Periodontol. 1977; 48: 768-771.
- 55Kydd WL, Daly CH, Wheeler JB. The thickness measurement of masticatory mucosa in vivo. Int Dent. 1971; 21: 430-441.
- 56Eger T, Müller HP, Heinecke A. Ultrasonic determination of gingival thickness. Subject variation and influence of tooth type and clinical features. J Clin Periodontol. 1996; 23: 839-845.
- 57Bednarz W, Zielińska A. Ultrasonic biometer and its usage in an assessment of periodontal soft tissue thickness and comparison of its measurement accuracy with a bone sounding method. Dent Med Probl. 2011; 48: 481-489.
- 58Gánti B, Bednarz W, Kőműves K, Vág J. Reproducibility of the PIROP ultrasonic biometer for gingival thickness measurements. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2019; 31: 263-267.
- 59Fagan F, Freeman E. Clinical comparison of the free gingival graft and partial thickness apically positioned flap. J Periodontol. 1974; 45: 3-8.
- 60Baldi C, Pini-Prato G, Pagliario U, et al. Coronally advanced flap procedure for root coverage. Is flap thickness a relevant predictor to achieve root coverage? A 19-case series. J Periodontol. 1999; 70: 1077-1084.
- 61Memon S, Patel JR, Sethuraman R, Patel R, Arora H. A comparative evaluation of the reliability of three methods of assessing gingival biotype in dentate subjects in different age groups: an in vivo study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2015; 15: 313-317.
- 62Nagate RR, Tikare S, Chaturvedi S, AlQahtani N, Kader MA, Gokhale ST. A novel perspective for predicting gingival biotype via dentopapillary measurements on study models in the Saudi population: cross-sectional study. Niger J Clin Pract. 2019; 22: 56-62.
- 63Liu F, Pelekos G, Jin LJ. The gingival biotype in a cohort of Chinese subjects with and without history of periodontal disease. J Periodontal Res. 2017; 52: 1004-1010.
- 64Hwang D, Wang HL. Flap thickness as a predictor of root coverage: a systematic review. J Periodontol. 2006; 77: 1625-1634.
- 65Kaiser DA, Hummert TW. Assessment of gingival margin thickness before margin placement. J Prosthet Dent. 1994; 71: 325-326.
- 66Alpiste-Illueca F. Dimensions of the dentogingival unit in maxillary anterior teeth: a new exploration technique (parallel profile radiograph). Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2004; 24: 386-396.
- 67Galgali SR, Gontiya G. Evaluation of an innovative radiographic technique-parallel profile radiography-to determine the dimensions of dentogingival unit. Indian J Dent Res. 2011; 22: 237-241.
- 68Stein JM, Lintel-Höping N, Hammächer C, Kasaj A, Tamm M, Hanisch O. The gingival biotype: measurement of soft and hard tissue dimensions-a radiographic morphometric study. J Clin Periodontol. 2013; 40: 1132-1139.
- 69Rossell J, Puigdollers A, Girabent-Farrés M. A simple method for measuring thickness of gingiva and labial bone of mandibular incisors. Quintessence Int. 2015; 46: 265-271.
- 70Mozzo P, Procacci C, Tacconi A, Tinazzi Martini P, Bergamo Andreis IA. A new volumetric CT machine for dental imaging based on the cone-beam technique: preliminary results. Eur Radiol. 1998; 8: 1558-1564.
- 71Barriviera M, Duarte WR, Januário AL, Faber J, Bezerra ACB. A new method to assess and measure palatal masticatory mucosa by cone-beam computerized tomography. J Clin Periodontol. 2009; 36: 564-568.
- 72Alves PHM, Alves TCLP, Pegoraro TA, Costa YM, Bonfante EA, de Almeida ALPF. Measurement properties of gingival biotype evaluation methods. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018; 20: 280-284.
- 73Orban B. Clinical and histologic study of the surface characteristics of the gingiva. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Patol. 1948; 1: 827-841.
- 74Pejčić AS, Obradović RR, Mirkovic DS. The width of the attached gingiva and its variability in people with healthy periodontal status. Acta Stomatol Naissi. 2017; 33: 1703-1717.
10.5937/asn1775703P Google Scholar
- 75Bernimoulin JP, Son S, Regolati B. Biometric comparison of three methods for determining the mucogingival junction. Helv Odontol Acta. 1971; 15: 118-120.
- 76Guglielmoni P, Promsudthi A, Tatakis DN, Trombelli L. Intra- and inter-examiner reproducibility in keratinized tissue width assessment with 3 methods for mucogingival junction determination. J Periodontol. 2001; 72: 134-139.
- 77Bathia G, Kumar A, Khatri M, Bansal M, Saxena S. Assessment of the width of attached gingiva using different methods in various age groups: a clinical study. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2015; 19: 199-202.
- 78Hilming F, Jervoe P. Surgical extension of vestibular depth. On the results in various regions of the mouth in periodontal patients. Tandlaegebladet. 1970; 74: 329-343.
- 79Mazeland GR. The mucogingival complex in relation to alveolar process height and lower anterior face height. J Periodontal Res. 1980; 15: 345-352.
- 80Lee SP, Kim TI, Kim HK, Shon WJ, Park YS. Discriminant analysis for the thin periodontal biotype based on the data acquired from three-dimensional virtual models of Korean young adults. J Periodontol. 2013; 84: 1638-1645.
- 81Ahmed AJ, Nichani AS, Venugopal R. An evaluation of the effect of periodontal biotype on inter-dental papilla proportions, distances between facial and palatal papillae in the maxillary anterior dentition. J Prosthodont. 2018; 27: 517-522.
Citing Literature
