Assessment of Gingival Thickness with Regard to Age , Gender and Location in the Dental Arch – A Clinical Study

Aim: Assessment of gingival thickness with regard to age, gender and its location in the dental arch. Objective: To assess the variance in the gingival thickness in patients who are reporting to the dental clinic in relation to their age, gender and dental arch location.Background: The measurement of the gingival thickness and the assessment of the periodontal status helps in the better treatment planning for aesthetic surgeries and mucogingival problems to achieve optimum therapeutic outcomes.Subjects reporting to the dental clinic are divided into three groups based on their age group(i) (18-24 yrs) , group(ii) froM(25-40 yrs), group(iii) (> 40 yrs) and into two subgroups male and female based on their gender . The gingival thickness will be measured by transgingival probing (TGP) using an endodontic reamer by anaesthetising the facial gingiva, in the anterior teeth region of both the arches. Result: The gingival thickness of the patients in varying age groups was found to be increasing with the increasing age, and it was thicker in males when compared with the females. And the thickness was higher in maxillary arch than the mandibular arch. Conclusion: The knowledge about the gingival thickness is essential in planning the appropriate treatment for the patients and also it may improve the quality of the treatment and predict its outcome. key words: age, gingival thickness, gender, transgingival probing INTRODUCTION The gingiva is that portion of the oral mucous membrane which, in a complete post-eruptive dentition of a healthy individual surrounds and is attached to the teeth and the alveolar processes. Normally, there is considerable variation in both width and thickness of the gingiva, a fact that gives rise to the assumption that numerous gingival biotypes might exist in any adult population. It has been long known that the clinical appearance of healthy gingiva differs from subject to subject and even among different tooth types. Many features are genetically determined; others seem to be influenced by tooth size, shape and position and biological phenomena such as gender, growth and age. Some authors have discussed earlier about the importance of ‘thick versus thin’ gingiva in restorative treatment planning and their different pathological responses when subjected to inflammatory, traumatic, or surgical insults. Thick gingival tissue is probably the representation most associated with periodontal health in which the tissue is dense in appearance with a fairly large zone of attachment and relatively thick underlying osseous forms. The gingival topography is relatively flat with the suggestion of a thick underlying bony architecture. Thin gingival tissue tends to be delicate, friable and almost translucent in appearance with a minimal zone of attached gingiva. The osseous architecture associated with this gingival tissue type is characterized by fenestration and dehiscence. Various studies have concluded that Gingival thickness (GT) plays a vital role in development of mucogingival problems, flap management during regenerative surgical procedures and also a significant predictor of the clinical outcome of root coverage procedures. If gingival tissues are different for thick and thin tissue biotypes, it seems logical that these distinctions would significantly influence periodontal therapy, orthodontic tooth movement and implant site preparation. Hence the assessment of GT is gaining a large momentum as far as treatment planning in mucogingival therapy is concerned. In recent years, the dimension of different parts ofmasticatory mucosa, especiallygingival thickness hasbecome the subject of considerable interest. In several clinical situations, information on GT ishighly desirable. For example, a thin and delicategingiva might be prone to developing recessionafter traumatic, inflammatory or surgical injuries. The aim of this research is to find the gingival thickness of various age groups and gender and also the thickness of the the two arches separately MATERIALS AND METHODS This study was approved by the scientific review board of Saveetha Dental College and the research was also conducted at the same college, Chennai. The research was carried out after getting an informed consent from the patients and also they were informed and explained about the research and its objectives. Patients were selected for the research based on the following inclusion and exclusion criteria. The criteria is all the patients at the age Aishwarya et al. / Assessment of Gingival. IJPCR, November 2015 December 2015, Volume 7, Issue 6 Page 400 Figure 1: Insertion with caliper Table 1: Dental arch Dental arch Group Mean ± standard deviation (mm) GT – maxillary arch (i) 18 24 yrs 0.46 ± 0.25 (ii) 25 40 yrs 0.44± 0.27 (III) Above 40 yrs 0.85 ± 0.46 Total 0.57 ± 0.37 GTmandibular arch (i) 18 24 yrs 0.30± 0.14 (ii) 25 40 yrs 0.40 ± 0.24 (III) Above 40 yrs 0.77 ± 0.46 Total 0.48 ± 0.36 Table 2: Gender Standard Deviation Gender Mean ± standard deviation (mm) GT – maxillary arch Male 0.75 ± 0.37